<p>Three Femoral Stem Designs Without Corrosion: A Review of 2095 Stems</p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Corrosion at the head-neck interface of modular components in total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been reported as a cause of failure of modern total hip replacement implants. While this method of failure has been well described, it remains poorly understood. The purpose of this study is to review the three most commonly used uncemented femoral stems at our institution over the last fifteen years and to correlate any established risk factors with rates of revision, particularly corrosion. METHODS: We reviewed 2095 patients from March 2000 to September 2015 who underwent total hip arthroplasty with one of three uncemented femoral stem designs. All stems were made of a Ti6Al4V alloy with a 12/14 taper design. We included only those stems coupled with a CoCr head and a highly crosslinked polyethylene liner. We evaluated age, gender, body mass index (BMI), femoral head size, head length, neck angle and offset and correlated these to the incidence of all cause revision, as well as revision excluding infection. RESULTS: There were no recognized corrosion-related revisions identified. There was no association between age, BMI, gender, head length, neck angle and offset to all cause revision or revision with infection excluded (p>0.05). Femoral head size less than 32mm was associated with higher all cause revision rates (OR 4.60 (95% CI 1.8, 11.8)) and when excluding infection as a reason for revision (OR 4.94 (95% CI 1.7, 14.41)). CONCLUSION: Over the last fifteen years, we have not identified any cases of corrosion with the three most commonly used femoral stems used at out institution. While we acknowledge that no femoral stem is immune to corrosion, certain femoral stem designs may be uniquely resistant to this mode of failure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".