A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Metal-On-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty and Metal-On-Metal Total Hip Resurfacing in Patients Less than 65 Years Old
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this prospective randomised study is to compare the early clinical results of the metal-on-metal hip resurfacing to metal-on-metal THA. Two hundred and ten hips were randomised between August 2003 and January 2006 (191 subjects). One hundred and two hips were implanted with an uncemented titanium tapered stem, and an uncemented titanium acetabular component and 28 mm metal-on-metal bearing (THA group) and 103 hips received a hybrid metal-on-metal surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA group). No significant difference was found with the WOMAC or Merle dAubign-Postel scales. However, a significantly higher activity level was found in the SRA group (UCLA score 6.3 versus 7.1, p= 0.037) and a greater percentage of the SRA patients returned to heavy or moderate activities at one - year postoperatively (72% versus 39%, p=0.007). No patient in either group presented with thigh pain one year after surgery. Both techniques present similar complication rates (0.15). This study supports the theory of better functional recovery in the short-term favouring the SRA when compared to THA. The clear benefit of surface replacement arthroplasty over THA is proximal femoral bone preservation. However, the long term survivorship of the SRA will determine the real value of the theoretical advantage.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".