Ceramic-on-Ceramic Total Hip Arthroplasty: I Can Hear You
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Squeaking is a known complication of ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) total hip arthroplasty (THA), yet there is a lack of studies specifically quantifying its loudness. The aims of this study were: (1) to determine the incidence of squeaking in CoC THAs at long-term follow-up; (2) to identify risk factors; and (3) to quantify the loudness of the squeaking. Methods A specifically designed prospective questionnaire was used to determine the prevalence, characteristics, and loudness of squeaking in 130 (110 patients) primary THAs with fourth-generation CoC bearings at a mean follow-up of 10.5 years. The loudness of the squeaking was determined by the decibel (dB) scale from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Results Overall, 28% of the CoC hips experienced squeaking. The mean onset was 5.7 years postoperatively, with 39% of the cases having their onset more than 5 years after their THA. Patients with a lower body mass index were more likely to report squeaking ( P = .009). The mean loudness of the squeak was 35 dB (range, 10-70 dB) and was loud in 36% of the hips. Patients who developed squeaking early postoperatively had louder squeaking than those with a later onset ( P = .007). The loudness of the squeaking sound progressed in 25% of the cases, and these hips had louder squeaking ( P = .04). Conclusions Squeaking after CoC THA is not uncommon, can be relatively loud, and increases over time. This needs to be considered in young patients that are candidates for CoC THAs.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".