Influence of Femoral Component Design on Proximal Femoral Bone Mass After Total Hip Replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this randomized controlled trial (RCT), we compared bone remodeling and bone turnover between 2 total hip arthroplasty implants-the short, proximally porous-coated Tri-Lock Bone-Preservation Stem and a conventional, fully-coated Corail prosthesis-over a 2-year postoperative period. METHODS: Forty-six participants received the Tri-Lock prosthesis and 40 received the Corail prosthesis. At baseline, the 2 groups had similar demographics, proximal femoral bone mineral density (BMD), bone turnover markers, radiographic canal flare index, and patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores. Outcomes were measured at weeks 26, 52, and 104. RESULTS: Loss of periprosthetic bone, measured by high-sensitivity dual x-ray absorptiometry region-free analysis (DXA-RFA), was identified at the calcar and proximal-lateral aspect of the femur in both prosthesis groups (p < 0.05). However, the conventional prosthesis was associated with a smaller reduction in BMD compared with the bone-preservation prosthesis (p < 0.001). This effect was most prominent in the region of the femoral calcar and greater trochanter. A small gain in BMD was also identified in some areas, and this gain was greater with the conventional than the bone-preservation prosthesis (p < 0.001). The 2 groups had similar changes in bone turnover markers and improvement in PROM scores over the study period (p > 0.05). The adverse-event rate was also similar between the groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This RCT shows that prostheses intended to preserve proximal femoral bone do not necessarily perform better in this regard than conventional cementless designs. DXA-RFA is a sensitive tool for detecting spatially complex patterns of periprosthetic bone remodeling. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".