Central cone design demonstrates greater micromotion compared to keel design in cementless tibial baseplates: A biomechanical analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare micromotion of two new cementless tibial baseplates to a cementless design with well-published clinical success. METHODS: Three cementless tibial baseplate designs (fixed-bearing [FB] with keel and cruciform pegs, rotating-platform with porous central cone and pegs, FB with cruciform keel and scalloped pegs) were evaluated on sawbone models. Loading was applied to the baseplate at a rate of 1 Hz for 10,000 cycles, which represents 6-8 weeks of stair descent. This time frame also represents the approximate time length for the induction of biologic fixation of cementless implants. Compressive and shear micromotion at the sawbone-implant interface were measured. RESULTS: At the end of the loading protocol, the central cone rotating-platform design exhibited greater micromotion at the anterior (p < 0.001), posterior (p < 0.001) and medial locations (p = 0.049) compared to the other two implants. The central cone design also exhibited greater translational micromotion in the sagittal plane at the medial (p = 0.001) and lateral locations (p = 0.034) and in the coronal plane anteriorly (p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: The cementless central cone rotating-platform baseplate demonstrated greater vertical and translational micromotion compared to the two FB baseplates with a keel underloading. This may indicate lower initial mechanical stability in implants without a keel, which possibly affects osseointegration. The implication of this is yet unknown and requires further long-term clinical follow-up to correlate these laboratory findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V (biomechanical study).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".