Birmingham Hip Resurfacing for osteoarthritis — a Canadian retrospective cohort study with a minimum 10-year follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Young men with osteoarthritis of the hip are a growing segment of the population requiring arthroplasty, and there is compelling evidence that the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) system provides good functional outcomes and durability in young, active men. We reviewed the survivorship and clinical outcomes of patients who underwent BHR with a minimum follow-up of 10 years. Methods: We analyzed survivorship using the Kaplan–Meier method. Functional scoring was performed using the Harris Hip Score (HHS), the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Score, and a visual analogue scale (VAS). Results: In total, 211 patients (243 hips) were included in the study. Of these, 107 patients (127 hips) were available for long-term clinical follow-up, with a mean duration of 12.4 ± 1.4 years. The proportion of male participants with BHRs surviving past 13 years was 93.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 87.9%–100%) compared with 87% (95% CI 77.8%–97.3%) of female patients. Eleven patients (11 hips) underwent BHR revision. Upon final follow-up, the median HHS was 93.9 in males and 93.6 in females (p = 0.27); median UCLA Activity Score was 8.2 in males and 7.2 in females (p < 0.001), and the median VAS score was 81.9 in males and 81.3 in females (p = 0.35). The median acetabular component inclination was 45.5° ± 6.0° (range 34.6°–57.2°) in males and 44.6° ± 5.9° (range 29°–58.9°) in females. The most common femoral head size was 50 mm with a 56 mm or 58 mm cup (36.3%). Conclusion: This study confirms that BHR provides good to excellent functional outcomes, lasting functional improvements, and acceptable durability beyond 10 years in men. Survivorship following BHR is inferior in women; however, HHS and VAS scores were similar in women and men.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".