Tri-Lock Bone Preservation Stem Versus Conventional Corail Stem in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty via Direct Anterior Approach: A Short-Term, Retrospective, Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND he present study was performed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of Tri-Lock bone preservation stems vs conventional Corail stems in primary total hip arthroplasty via direct anterior approach. MATERIAL AND METHODS In this retrospective analysis, patients receiving THA via DAA in a single-center hospital from January 2019 to March 2020 were assessed for eligibility and assigned to either a Tri-Lock BPS group or a Corail group based on the use of prostheses. Outcome measures for the efficiency evaluation of the 2 prostheses included perioperative outcomes, imaging results, Harris Hip Score, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index, and visual analog scale scores at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. RESULTS A total of 204 patients were included, including 98 patients (98 hips) in the Tri-Lock BPS group and 106 patients (106 hips) in the Corail group. Patients receiving Tri-Lock BPS exhibited better pain relief than those with Coral stems. Tri-Lock BPS had a higher safety profile vs Corail stems by significantly reducing the risk of complications (P=0.004). A markedly increased HHS score (84.42±16.27 vs 78.61±12.78, P=0.002) and a lower WOMAC score (25.08±15.39 vs 32.14±11.56, P=0.001) at 3 months postoperatively were observed in patients with Tri-Lock BPS vs those with Corail stems, indicating better restoration of hip function using Tri-Lock BPS. CONCLUSIONS During total hip arthroplasty via DAA, Tri-Lock BPS causes a smaller surgical wound, reduces the operative time and intraoperative bleeding, and produces less soft-tissue damage vs Corail stems, providing great benefits in femoral prosthesis placement.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".