Results of 198 primary total hip arthroplasties using the Delta PF-FIT system with ceramic-on-ceramic articulating surfaces with average seven years follow up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The lifetime implants is a key parameter that the surgeon should take into account at the time of the primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study was a clinical and radiographical evaluation of the Delta PF-FIT (LimaCorporate, Italy) THA system with ceramic-on-ceramic articulations. We have not found a clinical or radiographical assessment of this implant in available published literature. METHODS: A total of 197 (F = 94, M = 103) primary THAs were evaluated in 163 patients with a mean follow-up of 7.7 years (range 5.1-11.2 years (SD ± 1.5)) Harris hip Score (HHS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis index (WOMAC) were used for the clinical evaluation. The statistical evaluation was processed by standard statistical methods. The study was approved by Ethic Committee of the University Hospital Motol (Reference No. EK-73/19). RESULTS: The mean HHS score was found to be 97.59 points (61-100 range with a ± 5.13 SD, preoperative HSS was 51.21, range 28-73 with a ± 4,77 SD). 186 THAs were evaluated as excellent (90-100 points), 9 THAs rated as good (80-89 points), 1 THA was rated as fair (70-79) points and 1 THA rated as poor (less than 70 points). The mean WOMAC score was 97.38 points (65-100 range with a ± 5.18 SD, preoperative was 50,12, range 27-69 with a ± 4.85 SD). We documented an overall 99.49% Kaplan-Meier survival with a mean follow-up of 7.7 years with the FIT (LimaCorporate) stem revision and any component revision as the endpoint. With the Delta PF (LimaCorporate) cup revision as the endpoint, the survival was 100%. We have not found a previously published clinical or radiographical review of this THA system, the study shows a comparison with other THA implants. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of the Delta-PF-FIT (LimaCorporate, Italy) THA system with the use of ceramic-on-ceramic BIOLOX®Delta articulation surfaces shows very good outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".