Could Short Stems THA Be a Good Bone-Saving Option Even in Obese Patients?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Short femoral stems, with preservation of the femoral bone stock, are commonly used in recent years for hip replacement in younger and more active patients. Obesity is increasingly spreading even in the younger population. The aim of this case-series study is to evaluate short stems compared to traditional hip prostheses in the obese population. A total of 77 consecutive patients with a BMI greater than or equal to 30 Kg/m2 were enrolled in this prospective study and were divided into two groups: 49 patients have been implanted with short stems while 28 patients were implanted with traditional stems. All the patients were treated for primary osteoarthritis or avascular necrosis and all the stems were implanted by the same surgeon using a posterior approach. Clinical (Harris Hip Score—HHS, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index—WOMAC, visual analogue scale—VAS, 12-item Short Form Health Survey—SF-12) and radiographic outcomes were recorded. Radiological evaluations were carried out by three different blinded surgeons. A statistical analysis was performed (chi-square, t-test, Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test, 2-factor ANOVA). At a mean follow-up of 42.6 months both groups showed a marked improvement in pain and in the clinical scores between pre- and post-surgical procedures (p < 0.05) with no significant differences between the two groups at last follow-up (p > 0.05). The radiological evaluations, with high concordance correlation between the three blinded surgeons (ICC consistently >0.80), showed good positioning and osseointegration in all cases, with no significant differences in the restoration of the joint geometry and complications. No revisions were recorded during the follow-up period. In conclusion, short stems appear to be a good option for bone preservation even in obese patients, showing comparable results to traditional implants.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".