Comparison of Fracture Resistance Using Two Different Major Cemented Stems in Osteoporotic Bone Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Periprosthetic hip fractures (PPFs) are one of the major complications in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Therefore, it is important to identify a mechanism for fracture resistance in THA. This study aimed to clarify the differences in fracture torque and fracture type analysis between two different types of cemented stems. Methods: We conducted biomechanical testing of bone analogues using six cemented stems of two different types with osteoporotic bone models: Anterior minimally invasive surgery (AMIS)-K and Charnley-Marcel-Kerboull (CMK) stems. Experienced surgeons implanted each of these types of stems into six bone analogues, and the analogues were compressed and internally rotated until failure. Torque-to-fracture and fracture type were recorded. Results: There was no significant difference in fracture torque of AMIS-K stem, compared to the CMK stem (p = 0.94). The AMIS-K stem showed one comminuted oblique fracture of Vancouver type B2 and five fractures of type C at the tip of the stem. The CMK stem showed five comminuted oblique fracture of Vancouver type B2 and one of type C at the tip of the stem. Conclusion: The AMIS-K stem demonstrated comparable fracture resistance to the CMK stem in an osteoporotic model.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".