Long-term follow-up result of short metaphyseal femoral stem in primary total hip arthroplasty: A retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) has increased along with an increasing demand for improved quality of life. Combined with prolonged life expectancy, the number of revision surgeries is expected to increase. Stress shielding is a significant issue with traditional femoral stems used in THA, making revision surgeries particularly challenging in younger patients. This has sparked renewed interest in studying safety and functional outcomes of short metaphyseal femoral stems, which have the potential to alleviate these challenges and simplify revision surgeries. AIM: To evaluate the long-term outcomes of short-stem THA. METHODS: Depuy) between May 2006 and November 2008 were included in this study. Patients were followed for a period of 15 years. Outcomes were assessed in terms of pain relief, hip joint range of motion, improvement in mobility, and functional outcomes using the modified Harris Hip Score, Oxford hip score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index score. RESULTS: A total of 124 hips in 98 patients were evaluated. Significant improvements in functional outcomes were observed over the 15-year follow-up period, with no cases of subsidence, implant loosening, or complications necessitating revision surgery. The only complication reported was heterotopic ossification in 1 patient. CONCLUSION: Short metaphyseal stems provide better functional outcomes with early mobilization, and its long-term follow-up without subsidence, implant loosening, or proximal femoral bone loss simplifies revision surgery in younger patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".