MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4395037375 · doi:10.3390/jcm13092459

Revision of Failed Short Stems in Total Hip Arthroplasty

2024· article· en· W4395037375 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Filippo Migliorini, Francesco Coppola, Alessio D’Addona, Marco Rosolani, Federico Della Rocca

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTotal hip arthroplastyArthroplastySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The current literature lacks studies which evaluate the failure of short stems in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Therefore, the present clinical investigation reported our experience with the failure of short stems in THA, evaluating the causes of failure, survivorship, and the clinical outcomes of revision arthroplasty. Methods: The present study was performed according to the STROBE guidelines. This study was conducted at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery of the Humanitas Clinical Institute, Milan, Italy, between 2017 and 2022. All patients who underwent revision surgery of a previously implanted THA using a short stem were prospectively included in the present study. Surgeries were performed with patients in lateral position, using a minimally invasive posterolateral approach. The outcomes of interest were to report information on the type and survivorship of implants used for the revision surgery and evaluate the clinical outcomes and the rate of complications. The following patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used for the clinical assessment were the Western Ontario McMaster Osteo-Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and related subscales of pain, stiffness, and function, and the visual analogue scale (VAS). Results: Data from 45 patients were retrieved. Of them, 31% (14 of 45 patients) were women. The mean age was 63.7 ± 13.9 years. The mean length of the implant survivorship was 6.2 ± 5.7 years. In total, 58% (26 of 45 patients) underwent revision of all components, 36% (16 of 45 patients) revised only the stem, and 1% (3 of 45 patients) received a two-stage revision. The mean length of the follow-up was 4.4 ± 1.5 years. The cup was revised in 58% (26 of 45) of patients. At 4.4 ± 1.5 years of follow-up, the WOMAC score was 3.5 ± 1.3 and the VAS was 1.2 ± 1.3. In total, 9% (4 of 45) of patients experienced minor complications. One patient used a walking aid because of reduced function. One patient evidenced muscular hypotrophy. Two patients experienced hip dislocations. All two dislocations were managed conservatively with repositioning in the emergency room under fluoroscopy. No patient needed additional revision surgery or experienced further dislocations. Conclusions: Revision surgery is effective and safe when a short stem THA fails. At approximately four years of follow-up, all patients were highly satisfied with their clinical outcomes. Despite the relatively high number (9%), complications were of a minor entity and were successfully managed conservatively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine→Same topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty→French-language works237,207→