Cementing a collarless polished tapered femoral stem through the anterior approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to radiologically evaluate the quality of cement mantle and alignment achieved with a polished tapered cemented femoral stem inserted through the anterior approach and compared with the posterior approach. METHODS: A comparative retrospective study of 115 consecutive hybrid total hip arthroplasties or cemented hemiarthroplasties in 110 patients, performed through anterior (n = 58) or posterior approach (n = 57) using a collarless polished taper-slip femoral stem, was conducted. Cement mantle quality and thickness were assessed in both planes. Radiological outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: No significant differences were identified between groups in Barrack grade on the anteroposterior (AP) (p = 0.640) or lateral views (p = 0.306), or for alignment on the AP (p = 0.603) or lateral views (p = 0.254). An adequate cement mantle (Barrack A or B) was achieved in 77.6% (anterior group, n = 45) and in 86% (posterior group, n = 49), respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed factors associated with unsatisfactory cement mantle (Barrack C or D) included higher BMI, left side, and Dorr Type C morphology. A mean cement mantle thickness of ≥ 2 mm was achieved in all Gruen zones for both approaches. The mean cement mantle was thicker in zone 7 (p < 0.001) and thinner in zone 9 for the anterior approach (p = 0.032). Incidence of cement mantle defects between groups was similar (6.9% (n = 4) vs 8.8% (n = 5), respectively; p = 0.489). CONCLUSION: 2021;103-B(7 Supple B):46-52.
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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".