Can hip resurfacing be safely revised with short-stem total hip arthroplasty? A case series of six patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The usage of short stems in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) has constantly gained popularity over the last decade, however, to date, short stems are not eligible to be used as revision implants. The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the outcome of revision surgery of failed hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) using short-stem THA. METHODS: In a single center, retrospective analysis, 6 consecutive patients who were treated with a calcar-guided short stem after failure of HRA were evaluated. The mean follow-up was 3.25 years (SD 0.45). Patient reported outcome measurements (PROMs) were recorded using the Harris hip score (HHS) and The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). The health status was evaluated by the EQ-5D-5L score. Pain and satisfaction were obtained using the visual analogue scale (VAS). Radiographic analysis was performed by evaluating osteolysis, stress shielding, alignement and signs of aseptic loosening. Complications were documented. RESULTS: At last follow-up, clinical outcome was excellent (HHS ≥ 90) in 5 patients and good (HHS = 87) in 1 patient. The mean WOMAC score was 5.73% (SD 3.66%). The mean EQ-5D-5L index was 0.914 (SD 0.07). Pain and satisfaction on VAS was 1.83 (SD 5.18) and 8.67 (SD 0.94), respectively. Radiologically, no signs of subsidence, aseptic loosening, stress shielding and fracture were obvious. No major complications occurred. To date, no further revision surgery was needed. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of the present case series propose that HRA can be safely revised using short-stem THA in a selected patient group. Clinical and radiological results are encouraging. Based on the present data, short stems may be considered as a revision implant for failed HRA for experienced surgeons.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".