Greater increase in femoral offset with use of collum femoris-preserving stem than Tri-Lock stem in primary total hip arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This study was performed to compare the clinical outcomes and performance of the collum femoris-preserving (CFP) stem (Waldemar Link GmbH & Co., Hamburg, Germany) and the Tri-Lock stem (DePuy Orthopaedics, Warsaw, IN, USA) in terms of femoral offset (FO) and leg length reconstruction. Methods Clinical and radiographic data of patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty with either a CFP stem or Tri-Lock stem from January 2016 to March 2017 were compared (65 and 57 patients, respectively). The Harris hip score and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index were recorded. The FO, femoral vertical offset, and neck–shaft angle were measured at the last follow-up. The occurrence of dislocation and periprosthetic fracture during the follow-up period was recorded. Results The CFP stem induced significantly more FO than did the Tri-Lock stem on the operated side than contralateral side (3.63 ± 4.28 vs. 0.83 ± 5.46 mm). Significantly fewer patients had a >5-mm decrease in FO on the unaffected side in the CFP stem group ( n = 1) than Tri-Lock stem group ( n = 10). Conclusion Both stems similarly improved hip function and reconstructed the leg length, but the CFP stem was superior to the Tri-Lock stem in reconstructing FO.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".