Removal of acetabular bone in resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volumeVol. 88-B, No. 6 CorrespondenceFree AccessRemoval of acetabular bone in resurfacing arthroplasty of the hipP.A. VENDITTOLI, M. LAVIGNE, A.G. ROY, J. GIRARDP.A. VENDITTOLIAssistant Professor of SurgerySearch for more papers by this author, M. LAVIGNESearch for more papers by this author, A.G. ROYSearch for more papers by this author, J. GIRARDSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:1 Jun 2006https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.88B6.18085AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsAdd to Favourites ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Sir,We read this article with interest. The authors conclude that more acetabular bone is removed during a surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA) than during a THA. The retrospective nature of the study and the patient selection for SRA, which includes more males with a different femoral pathoanatomy, may have biased their conclusion. To be able to compare the two groups, they used the femoral head diameter of the contralateral side for correction of size. This is not appropriate, as the contralateral side often has different pathoanatomy when compared with the operated side. Secondly, the limiting factor in hip resurfacing is the femoral neck diameter, not the femoral head diameter. We believe that ‘resurfacing patients’ are so different from ‘standard THA patients’ that a comparative study (the same surgeon operating on the patients during the same time period) is not accurate enough to address the question of bone resection adequately.In this study several factors may have influenced the amount of resection of acetabular bone, including the design of femoral and acetabular components and the increments of size of the implant system. When upsizing the femoral component, which may occur to avoid femoral neck notching, the larger the increment (4 mm for Birmingham hip replacement), the more bone will be sacrificed on the acetabular side. The thickness of the acetabular component wall is important, since for a given femoral component size, the thicker the acetabular component, the more bone that needs to be removed. Surgical technique is also a major factor affecting the removal of bone. Successfully implanting a resurfacing implant is not simply an issue of obtaining fixation, good position and avoiding notching, surgeons rightly concerned about preserving femoral bone stock should also be concerned about preservation of acetabular bone stock.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byHip Resurfacing ImplantsOrthopedics, Vol. 38, No. 8Correlation between groin pain and cup design of hip-resurfacing implants: a prospective study10 December 2013 | International Orthopaedics, Vol. 38, No. 5Blood levels of cobalt and chromium are inversely correlated to head size after metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty17 June 2013 | HIP International, Vol. 23, No. 6Running Activity After Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty1 February 2012 | The American Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 40, No. 4Femoral head to neck offset after hip resurfacing is critical for range of motionClinical Biomechanics, Vol. 27, No. 2Femoral Component Positioning in Hip Resurfacing With and Without NavigationClinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, Vol. 467, No. 5Resurfaçage de hanche : état actuel des connaissancesRevue de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Réparatrice de l'Appareil Moteur, Vol. 94, No. 8 Vol. 88-B, No. 6 Metrics History Published online 1 June 2006 Published in print 1 June 2006 InformationCopyright © 2006, The British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery: All rights reservedPDF download
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".