The impact of free‐radical stabilization techniques on in vivo subsurface mechanical properties in highly cross‐linked polyethylene acetabular liners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) for total hip arthroplasty was developed to improve wear resistance in vivo and associated complications in comparison to ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene. This material typically goes through various free-radical stabilization techniques by remelting, single-annealing, or sequentially annealing the polyethylene to improve in vivo oxidation and wear properties. The purpose of this study is to determine if there is evidence of subsurface microhardness changes in retrieved HXLPE liner at the rim and articular subsurface after extended in vivo time that could be associated with oxidation and its effects on mechanical properties and implant integrity. Retrieved HXLPE liners were chosen based on peak subsurface Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy oxidation values. Each was mechanically tested for subsurface microhardness at both the rim and articular surface using a validated microindentation technique. Rim testing demonstrated a decrease in mechanical integrity that corresponded to higher subsurface oxidation values regardless of the free-radical stabilization technique. At the articular surface, a decrease in mechanical integrity was observed near the surface corresponding to peak oxidation and Vicker's hardness, which decreased with increasing depths. This was found in all groups, with the exception of the single-annealed liners, which demonstrated decreased mechanical integrity trends at greater depths between 1.0 and 2.0 mm. Our results suggest that subsurface mechanical properties do change in vivo for certain implants. Though it is likely that the mechanical failures are multifactorial, we have shown that mechanical property degradation of HXLPE liners does occur with long-term in vivo exposure and should be considered a possible risk factor.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".