Survivorship of Cemented Versus Cementless Metal on Metal Hip Resurfacing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: One of the most common causes of failure after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoM HR) remains femoral neck fracture and aseptic loosening of the femoral component. The purpose of this study was to compare the survivorship of cemented and cementless femoral fixation metal on metal hip resurfacing. Methods: Five-hundred ninety patients' MoM HR performed through the Hueter-anterior approach with a minimum 5-year (mean age 50 years, body mass index (BMI) 29, 555 men and 35 women) follow-up were reviewed. One hundred and forty-three cementless (mean age 50 years, mean BMI 29, 136 men and 7 women) and 143 cemented MoM HR (mean age 52 years, mean BMI 29, 136 men and 7 women) were matched on age, sex, and BMI. Overall failures, femoral failures, adverse events, and complications were assessed. Acetabular cup inclination, neck-shaft angle (NSA), stem-shaft angles (SSA), Δ NSA-SSA, and neck narrowing were recorded. Results: Survivorship was 91% at a mean follow-up of 8.2 years (range 5-19). There were 14 failures (10% rate) in the cemented group and 12 failures (8% failure rate) in the cementless group (p > 0.05) with men at 92.7% and women at 74.9% (p = 0.019). In the male group, using isolated femoral reasons for revision survivorship was 96.5% for the cemented group and 98% for the cementless group (p > 0.05). Neck narrowing more than 10% was present in 11 patients (8%) in the cemented group and in 3 patients (2%) in the cementless group (p < 0.01). No significant correlation was found between any radiological parameter and the risk of failure. Conclusion: Both cementless and cemented MoM HR are associated with excellent survivorship, especially in men with cementless fixation having a lower incident of neck narrowing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".