MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exeter Universal cemented femoral component

2020· article· en· W3091209832 on OpenAlexaff
Fouzia Khatun, Damien F. Gill, Amit Atrey, Matthew Porteous

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Bone & Joint Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePeriprostheticRadiological weaponOsteolysisSurgeryConfidence intervalArthroplastyHarris Hip ScoreInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Bone & Joint JournalSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207