Tapered, Fluted, Titanium Stems in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Establishing stable femoral component fixation in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) remains challenging. Early monobloc tapered, fluted, titanium (TFT) designs were complicated by high rates of subsidence, while modular designs were complicated by taper corrosion and junctional fractures. Newer generation monobloc stems have been designed to minimize subsidence. Therefore, the aim of this study was to present the clinical and radio-graphic results of the most recent modular and monobloc TFT designs. Materials and Methods Patients undergoing rTHA in which TFT femoral stems were used, whether modular or monobloc, were included in this retrospective review. Included stems had the same design characteristics and were from the same manufacturer. The only difference was neck modularity. Radiographic analysis for stem subsidence was performed. Clinical outcomes including Harris Hip Score (HHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores, and re-revisions were collected. We examined survivorship for the endpoints of subsidence or re-revision for any reason. Results Ninety-four (66 monobloc, 28 modular) hips met inclusion criteria, with a median follow-up of 25.9 months. Mean stem subsidence was 1.9±0.2 mm in the modular group and 2.1±0.3 mm in the monobloc group ( P =.56), with 90 of 94 (95%) stems subsiding less than 5 mm. Twelve hips (13%) required re-revision with no difference in survival between the groups. HHS and WOMAC scores significantly improved from preoperative to last recorded follow-up in both groups ( P ≤.01). Conclusion Advances in implant design including spline geometry and more aggressive tapers in monobloc TFT femoral components offer encouraging clinical outcomes with an overall low risk of clinically significant subsidence. [ Orthopedics . 2025;48(2):79–86.]
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".