MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138040973 · doi:10.1007/s00402-021-03843-x

Biomechanics of a cemented short stem: a comparative in vitro study regarding primary stability and maximum fracture load

2021· article· en· W3138040973 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tobias Freitag, Karl Philipp Kutzner, Ralf Bieger, Heiko Reichel, Anita Ignatius, Lutz Dürselen

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriprostheticMedicineBiomechanicsCadaverFixation (population genetics)ImplantOrthopedic surgeryArthroplastyFracture (geology)Femoral fractureOrthodonticsInitial stabilityDentistryFemurSurgeryComposite materialMaterials scienceAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: In total hip arthroplasty, uncemented short stems have been used more and more frequently in recent years. Especially for short and curved femoral implants, bone-preserving and soft tissue-sparing properties are postulated. However, indication is limited to sufficient bone quality. At present, there are no curved short stems available which are based on cemented fixation. METHODS: In this in vitro study, primary stability and maximum fracture load of a newly developed cemented short-stem implant was evaluated in comparison to an already well-established cemented conventional straight stem using six pairs of human cadaver femurs with minor bone quality. Primary stability, including reversible micromotion and irreversible migration, was assessed in a dynamic material-testing machine. Furthermore, a subsequent load-to-failure test revealed the periprosthetic fracture characteristics. RESULTS: Reversible and irreversible micromotions showed no statistical difference between the two investigated stems. All short stems fractured under maximum load according to Vancouver type B3, whereas 4 out of 6 conventional stems suffered a periprosthetic fracture according to Vancouver type C. Mean fracture load of the short stems was 3062 N versus 3160 N for the conventional stems (p = 0.84). CONCLUSION: Primary stability of the cemented short stem was not negatively influenced compared to the cemented conventional stem and no significant difference in fracture load was observed. However, a clear difference in the fracture pattern has been identified.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.229 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Orthopaedic and Trauma SurgerySame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207