MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211057969 · doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2022.103242

Midterm results of titanium conical Wagner stem with challenging femoral anatomy: Survivorship and unique bone remodeling

2022· article· en· W4211057969 on OpenAlexafffund
Maged Shahin, Vincent Massé, Étienne L. Belzile, Luc Bédard, Michèle Angers, Pascal‐André Vendittoli

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedics & Traumatology Surgery & Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFondation de l’Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
KeywordsMedicinePeriprostheticSurgeryImplantRadiographyFemurOrthopedic surgeryDeformityPerioperativeRetrospective cohort studyFemoral neckArthroplastyDentistryOsteoporosisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Complex anatomy of the proximal femur makes total hip arthroplasty (THA) more challenging. Short, straight, fluted and conical titanium stem like the Wagner Cone can be helpful to address small femoral canal, increased femoral neck version, important leg length discrepancy or proximal femoral deformity. The outcome in these patients is less assured and associated with high rate of complications. Therefore, we did a retrospective study aiming to answer: 1) can the Wagner Cone stem provide acceptable mid- to long-term implant survivorship; 2) help minimizing perioperative adverse events; 3) produce favorable clinical outcome measured by WOMAC score; and 4) be associated with a favorable radiographic femoral bone remodeling at the last follow-up? HYPOTHESIS: Wagner Cone stem is an advantageous solution for the distorted proximal femur in complex THA. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Our cohort was derived from the patient registries where medical records of 88 patients (103 hips) who underwent primary THA using the Wagner prosthesis were retrospectively reviewed. Then, data was analyzed for patients' demographics and surgical data, and comparing preoperative, immediate postoperative and last follow-up data. Eleven patients (12 hips) were excluded (7 hips followed up less than 2 years or lost to follow-up, 3 hips that had the Wagner stem for revision and 2 Wagner stems inserted for periprosthetic fracture). This left 77 patients (91 hips) with Wagner cone stems implanted for more than 2 years between March 2003 and February 2017 by 7 surgeons in 3 academic hospitals. Implant revision, reoperations, WOMAC score and radiographic analyses were recorded at last follow-up. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up of 7.8 (range, 2.0-16.2) years, Wagner stem survivorship was 98.9% (95% CI: 94 to 100%) with one (1.1%) stem revision for failure of osteointegration. Five (5.5%) acetabular revisions, one for aseptic loosening, 2 for adverse reaction to metal debris and 2 for infection. One (1.1%) sciatic neuropathy and 4 (4.4%) intraoperative fractures were encountered. The mean WOMAC score was 90.5±11.4 (59-100). Radiographic analysis showed clear signs of stem osseointegration and hypertrophic bone remodeling in 82 cases (92.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Used in complex cases with proximal distorted femurs, the Wagner Cone stem demonstrated a low complication rate, a high-rate consistent adaptive bone remodeling, excellent clinical results, and midterm survival. It is a safe, reliable and advantageous option in complex primary THA. However, the contribution of the underlying cause of the secondary osteoarthritis on the long-term survival of the stem remains to be demonstrated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV; retrospective study.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 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

Citations26
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedics & Traumatology Surgery & ResearchSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207