The Polished Tri-Tapered Stem for Cement-In-Cement Revision Hip Arthroplasty, a Reliable and Reproducible Technique?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The object of this study was to determine the short to medium term outcome of cementing a highly polished tapered implant into the old cement mantle once damaged cement is removed at the time of revision hip surgery. A consecutive series of 36 patients underwent c-stem cement-in-cement revision hip arthroplasty between June 2000 and April 2006. The primary outcome measure was the validated shortened Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) score, secondary outcomes were the Orthowave company patient satisfaction survey, radiological analysis, and general complications. The follow-up period was between 12 and 84 months (average 48.86 months). The mean post op WOMAC score at latest follow-up was 10.89 (0 to 29). Two patients died with their hip in situ. Two patients had radiological signs of prosthesis loosening on follow-up. Complications included: one sacral plexus palsy which had a partial recovery and one intra-operative periprosthetic fracture. One patient underwent cup revision for recurrent dislocation. Cement within cement revision hip arthroplasty using a highly polished tapered stem in the short to medium term provides satisfactory functional outcomes and is associated with a low complication rate and good survivorship.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".