Intermediate to Long-Term Outcomes and Causes of Aseptic Failure of an At-Risk Femoral Stem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Accolade TMZF is a tapered-wedge cementless metaphyseal-coated femoral stem that was widely utilized from 2002 to 2012. In recent years, there have been reports of early catastrophic failure of this implant. The purposes of the present study were to establish the long-term survival of this stem and to analyze patients who underwent aseptic revision to understand the causes and risk factors for failure. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of all patients who had undergone primary total hip arthroplasty with use of an Accolade TMZF stem at a high-volume arthroplasty center. The causes and timing of revision surgery were documented. Survivorship analysis was performed with use of Kaplan-Meier curves to determine the overall and aseptic survival rates at the time of the latest follow-up. Patient and implant factors commonly associated with aseptic failure were extracted, and a Cox proportional hazards model was used. RESULTS: A consecutive series of 2,609 patients who had undergone unilateral primary total hip arthroplasty with use of an Accolade TMZF femoral stem were included. The mean time from the primary procedure was 11.3 years (range, 0 days to 19.4 years). The cumulative survival rate was 95.5% ± 0.1% at the time of the latest follow-up. One hundred and seven patients underwent revision surgery, with aseptic loosening of the femoral component being the most common cause of aseptic failure in this cohort (33 of 2,609; 1.3%). Smaller femoral size and larger femoral head offset were independent risk factors for aseptic failure. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the largest series representing the longest follow-up of this tapered-wedge cementless femoral implant. Despite early concerns, the Accolade TMZF stem had excellent survivorship in this cohort. Trunnionosis as the cause for revision surgery was rare. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".