Exeter Universal cemented femoral component
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: We present the results, in terms of survival, clinical outcome, and radiological appearance at 20 years, in a cohort of 225 cemented Exeter Universal femoral components (Stryker, Newbury, UK) implanted in 207 patients, at a district general hospital. METHODS: All patients in this study had a total hip arthroplasty (THA) using an Exeter Universal femoral component with a cemented (n = 215) or cementless (n = 10) acetabular component. Clinical and radiological data were collected prospectively at one year, five years, and every five years thereafter. Patients lost to radiological and clinical follow-up (five) were cross-referenced with National Joint Registry (NJR) data and general practitioner (GP) records to assess whether they had undergone revision for any reason. RESULTS: During this period of study 144 patients (157 hips) died (69.78%). Two patients were lost to follow-up, leaving 61 patients (66 hips) available for review (29.33%). Of the 225 hips, three underwent revision for femoral failure with osteolysis. One underwent femoral component revision for treatment of a periprosthetic fracture. Eight underwent revision of the acetabular component only for loosening. Two hips had both components revised, when components were found to be loose at time of revision for acetabular loosening, though no radiological femoral osteolysis. Two patients underwent revision for infection. Using femoral loosening as an endpoint, the survival of the Exeter Universal femoral component was 98.7% (n = 220, 95% confidence interval (CI) 96.1% to 100%) at 20 to 22 years. Survival with an endpoint of revision for any reason was 92.6% (n = 209, 95% CI 89.4 to 95.55), with a 'worst-case scenario' (considering two patients lost to follow-up to have failed), the overall survival rate was 91.7% (n = 207, 95% CI 87.8 to 95.9) at 20 to 22 years. CONCLUSION: 2020;102-B(10):1319-1323.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".