MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210849424 · doi:10.1186/s12891-022-05082-6

Liner dissociation in a large-diameter ceramic-bearing acetabular component: a report of five cases

2022· article· en· W4210849424 on OpenAlexaff
Lazaros Kostretzis, Sagi Martinov, Martin Lavigne, Vincent Massé, Pascal‐André Vendittoli

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImplantAcetabulumSurgeryCeramicRadiographyFemoral headOrthopedic surgeryTotal hip arthroplastyRange of motionWeight-bearingDentistryComposite materialMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings for total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been offering very favorable results and survivorship since their introduction. In order to increase range of movement (ROM) and decrease dislocation rates, some manufacturers have introduced larger diameter head (LDH) CoC bearings. This has been achieved with the use of preassembled cup designs, in which the ceramic liner is already fitted into the metal backing and implanted as a monoblock component by the surgeon. In this report we present data from a series of 5 patients with ceramic liner dissociation from a monoblock cup. CASE PRESENTATION: All cases were overweight men with acetabular components of 56 or 58 mm. After a mean of 5.5 (range, 3.5-6.7) years, all patients reported sudden pain and audible noise when performing activities of daily living. Liner displacement was suspected on plain radiographs and confirmed by Ct-scan. Pneumarthrosis was present in all cases. Taper modular junction wear and corrosion signs were observed in the four revised patients. CONCLUSION: Although one of our case is still treated conservatively, implant revision is probably inevitable. Further LDH CoC implant design should take in consideration this potential complication by avoiding bearing diameters over 40mm and/or improving locking mechanism or by providing a real monoblock acetabular implant.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Musculoskeletal DisordersSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207