Fifteen-Year Follow-Up of Nanos Neck-Preserving Hip Arthroplasty: An Observational Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Neck-preserving total hip arthroplasty (THA) has gained interest for conserving bone stock, restoring biomechanics, and facilitating revision surgery. The Nanos® femoral stem, designed for metaphyseal fixation while preserving the femoral neck, represents a reliable alternative to conventional THA. This study reports 15-year clinical and radiographic outcomes of the Nanos implant. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 53 patients (35 males, 18 females) who underwent THA with the Nanos stem between 2008 and 2010. Patients were stratified into two groups according to age: <50 years (n = 24) and ≥50 years (n = 29). The primary diagnosis was osteoarthritis (95%), with a few cases of avascular necrosis or dysplasia. Clinical evaluation included the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). Radiographic assessment focused on implant stability, osteolysis, and heterotopic ossifications. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was performed with revision for any reason as the endpoint. Results: At 15 years of follow-up, both groups showed significant improvement (p < 0.001). In patients <50 years, HHS increased from 53.3 to 94.8 and WOMAC decreased from 79.9 to 3.5. In patients ≥50 years, HHS improved from 47.5 to 95.2 and WOMAC from 81.5 to 3.2. Radiographs confirmed stable fixation without osteolysis. Complications included two dislocations and one cortical perforation requiring revision. Kaplan–Meier survivorship at 15 years was 100% (<50) and 96.6% (≥50). Conclusions: The Nanos stem provided excellent long-term outcomes with low complication and revision rates. It should be considered one of several reliable short-stem options for younger, active patients, offering durable function while preserving bone stock.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".