Excellent Results of Large-Diameter Ceramic-On-Ceramic Bearings in Total Hip Arthroplasty at Minimum Ten-Year Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study reports the minimum 10 years results of total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed using a monoblock acetabular component with a large-diameter head ceramic-on-ceramic bearing. METHODS: Of the 276 THAs included in this study, there were eleven deaths and 27 patients lost to follow up (11%) during the follow-up, leaving 237 (85%) hips available for review at a mean of 10.5 years (range, 10 to 12) postoperatively. Reoperations, implant revisions, adverse events, clinical outcomes, radiographic evaluation, and whole blood metal ion levels were assessed at the last follow-up. RESULTS: After a minimum of 10 years, implant survivorship was 98.7%. There were 3 revisions (1.3%): one for insufficient acetabular cup primary fixation, one traumatic periprosthetic acetabular fracture, and one probable deep chronic infection. No dislocation or ceramic implant fracture was observed. The mean University of California at Los Angeles activity score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score, and Forgotten Joint Score were 5.6 (2 to 10), 90.1 (9 to 100), and 79.2 (4 to 100), respectively. All patients (100%) were satisfied or very satisfied. Since implantation, 43% of patients reported hearing a squeaking noise from the prosthesis. But all patients who reported squeaking were satisfied with the surgery. The mean titanium level was 2.2 μg/L (1.1 to 5.6). No progressive radiolucent lines, osteolysis, or implant loosening signs were observed at the last radiographic evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: A large-diameter head ceramic-on-ceramic THA provides outstanding long-term (minimum 10 years) implant survivorship with unrestricted activity while avoiding implant impingement, liner fracture, and hip instability. Functional outcomes, satisfaction, and joint perception were excellent. Although the incidence of squeaking was high, it did not affect patient satisfaction or function. The systemic titanium levels were low, related to unavoidable passive corrosion of implant surfaces, and did not reveal any indirect signs of trunnionosis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".