Comparison of two hydroxyapatite-coated femoral components: a randomized clinical trial using radiostereometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims The primary aim of this trial was to compare the subsidence of two similar hydroxyapatite-coated titanium femoral components from different manufacturers. Secondary aims were to compare rotational migration (anteversion/retroversion and varus/valgus tilt) and patient-reported outcome measures between both femoral components. Methods Patients were randomized to receive one of the two femoral components (Avenir or Corail) during their primary total hip arthroplasty between August 2018 and September 2020. Radiostereometric analysis examinations at six, 12, and 24 months were used to assess the migration of each implanted femoral component compared to a baseline assessment. Patient-reported outcome measures were also recorded for these same timepoints. Overall, 50 patients were enrolled (62% male (n = 31), with a mean age of 65.7 years (SD 7.3), and mean BMI of 30.2 kg/m 2 (SD 5.2)). Results The two-year subsidence was similar for Avenir (-0.018 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.053 to 0.018) and Corail (0.000 mm (95% CI -0.027 to 0.026; p = 0.428). Both anteversion/retroversion (Avenir 0.139° (95% CI -0.204 to 0.481°); Corail -0.196° (95% CI -0.445 to 0.053°; p = 0.110) and varus/valgus tilt (Avenir -0.024° (95% CI -0.077 to 0.028); Corail -0.049° (95% CI -0.098 to 0.000°; p = 0.473) were not statistically significantly different. After two years, patients reported similar improvements in EuroQol five-dimension five-level health questionnaire (Avenir 0.22 (SD 0.2); Corail 0.22 (SD 0.18); p = 0.965) and other outcomes scores. Patient satisfaction on a five-point Likert scale was also similar between both groups after two years (Avenir 1.38 (SD 0.88); Corail 1.33 (SD 0.57); p = 0.846). Conclusion The performance of both femoral components was similar in terms of stability and patient outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(10):1045–1051.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".