The utility of cemented femoral stems in modern THA: a 10-year comparative analysis of the Charnley and Exeter stems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Total hip replacement (THR) is one of the most common surgical procedures performed worldwide. The controversy surrounding the relative merits of a cemented composite beam or cemented taper-slip stem in total hip replacement continues. Our aims primarily were to assess the 10-year outcomes of cemented stems using Charnley and Exeter prostheses with regional registry data and secondarily to assess the main predictors of revision. METHODS: We prospectively collected registry data for procedures performed between January 2005 and June 2008. Only cemented Charnley and Exeter stems were included. Patients were prospectively reviewed at 6 months, 2, 5 and 10 years. The primary outcome measure was a 10-year all-cause revision. Secondary outcomes included 're-revision', 'mortality' and functional 'Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index' (WOMAC) scores. RESULTS: We recorded a total of 1351 cases in the cohort, 395 Exeter and 956 Charnley stems. The overall all-cause revision rate at 10 years was 1.6%. The revision rate for Charnley stem was 1.4% and 2.3% revision rate for all Exeter stems with no significant difference noted between the two cohorts (p = 0.24). The overall time to revision was 38.3 months. WOMAC scores at 10 years were found to be insignificantly higher for Charnley stems (mean 23.8, σ = 20.11) compared to Exeter stems (mean 19.78, σ = 20.72) (p = 0.1). CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference between cemented Charnley and Exeter stems; they both perform well above the international average. The decline in the use of cemented THA is not fully supported by this regional registry data.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".