Uncemented computer-assisted design-computer-assisted manufacture femoral components in revision total hip replacement: a minimum follow-up of ten years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The variability of the endosteal geometry after removal of the femoral component can make proximal fit difficult to achieve with an ‘off the shelf’ prosthesis. Whatever the anatomy of the proximal femur, it is important to achieve immediate stability, preserve bone stock and protect the femur from cortical defects which can lead to subsequent fracture. In revision Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) this requires a large inventory of modular components. The use of custom computer-assisted design-computer-assisted manufacture (CAD-CAM) components negates this need. Little has been published on the use of custom-made components in revision THA. We report the results of a cohort of patients who underwent revision THA using CAD-CAM femoral components. Methods A prospective study was performed between 1991 and 1998. A consecutive series of patients who had revision THA using custom components were assessed clinically and radiologically. The design of the femoral components was governed by the existing femoral bone stock. Patients were reviewed pre operatively then at 6 weeks, 3months and 12 months postoperatively and then annually. Radiographs were assessed at each visit and Oxford, Harris and WOMAC hip scores were calculated Results One hundred and fifty eight patients were included (97 males, 61 females). Mean age was 63.1 years (34.6 to 85.9 years). Mean follow-up was 10.8 years (10 to 12). The mean Oxford, Harris and Western Ontario and McMaster hip scores improved from 41.1, 44.2 and 52.4 pre-operatively to 18.2, 89.3 and 12.3, respectively (p Conclusion Custom CAD CAM femoral components provide pain relief and return to function when used in revision THA. These clinical results are comparable to previously published reports for revision THA using either cemented or uncemented components.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".