A Comparison Between Two Bearing Surfaces for Total Hip Arthroplasty—Ceramic-on-Ceramic and Metal–Polycarbonate–Urethane—A Pseudo-Randomized Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Polycarbonate–urethane (PCU) is a recently developed bearing surface used in prosthetic hip surgery. It offers several theoretical advantages, including an elasticity modulus similar to that of natural cartilage, good lubrication properties, low wear, and the possibility of using large heads. However, comparative clinical experience is limited. The purpose of this study was to analyze the results of the PCU bearing surface and compare them with those of ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings using the same femoral stem model. (2) Methods: Following a propensity score matching analysis of a prospectively collected database, patients with a primary total hip arthroplasty aged between 18 and 60 years were included. Subjects were divided into two groups (PCU and CoC). Demographic, patient satisfaction, and implant survival data were recorded. Clinical results were evaluated using the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). (3) Results: A total of 105 patients were included in each group. All patients exhibited a positive evolution on both the HHS and the WOMAC subscales between pre-op and one year post-op, no statistically significant differences being found between the groups with respect to improvement on the HHS (p = 0.172) or the pain (p = 0.523), stiffness (p = 0.448), and physical function (p = 0.255) subscales of the WOMAC. Head sizes in the PCU group were found to be larger, but this was not seen to have any effect on the patients’ clinical status or the prostheses’ dislocation rate. Although the complication rate was similar across the groups (p = 0.828), the incidence of squeaking was higher in the PCU group (p = 0.010). No differences were observed when comparing the implant survival rate (p = 0.427). nor in mean patient satisfaction (p = 0.138). (4) Conclusions: No differences were found in terms of clinical results, complications, implant survival, or patient satisfaction between the bearing surfaces under analysis, indicating that all of them are valid alternatives in total hip replacement, although the higher proportion of squeaking observed makes it advisable to exercise some caution.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".