MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416211189 · doi:10.1302/1358-992x.2025.13.004

DO WE NEED TO CEMENT FEMORAL STEMS IN OSTEOPETROSIS?

2025· article· en· W4416211189 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jean‐Yves Chouinard, Julien Dаrtus, Vincent Massé, Xavier Zwiebel, Carol L. Richards, Brent A. Lanting, Michael Tänzer, J. Wolfstadt, Gavin Wood, Stéphane Pelet, Étienne L. Belzile

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier de l'Université Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedullary cavityOrthopedic surgeryFemoral canalImplantOsteopetrosisArthroplastyFemurDemographicsBone cement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Osteopetrosis is a rare condition characterized by an increased bone density. Patients with osteopetrosis represent a greater orthopaedic surgical challenge for its hard, sclerotic, and brittle bone and its reduced or virtual medullary canal rendering femoral canal preparation difficult from overheating during reaming. The purpose of this study was to describe 1) whether cemented or cementless femoral stems have better implant survival in THA for patients with osteopetrosis and 2) the rate and nature of complications after THA in these patients. A retrospective descriptive Canadian multicentre (n=23) study was conducted involving all orthopedic centers treating patients with osteopetrosis. Osteopetrosis patients who underwent THA in the treatment of primary osteoarthritis or secondary to a hip fracture were identified after a survey of The Canadian Arthroplasty Society members. Hospital databases from nine participating centres identified cases between July 1997 and February 2023. Medical charts and databases were reviewed for patient demographics (age, gender, Body Mass Index, medical comorbidities, previous hip surgery, mechanism of fracture, surgical indication), surgical data (femoral stem fixation (cemented or cementless) and post-operative orthopedic complications. Available imaging studies at the latest follow-up were analyzed by an independent examiner to grade the probability of femoral implant loosening. A total of 22 THA, 10 cemented and 12 cementless, from 18 patients were censed Canada-wide and included in this study. The mean age at THA was 45.6 ± 19.1 years (range 18 – 76.1), most of them (70%) were female. The mean follow-up time was 9.1 ± 5.9 years (range 1-26). The 10-year survivorship for femoral implant revision is better for cementless stems (89% vs 71%, p=0.18) without reaching statistical significance. THA with cementless femoral stem also have a better 10-year survivorship for reoperation for all-cause 89% vs 52% (p = 0.03). Intraoperatively, four cases (18.2%) sustained an acetabular wall fracture and/or an acetabular column fracture during the insertion of a press fit non-cemented cup while three patients (13.6%) had a femoral shaft fracture. Orthopedic postoperative complications were significantly more frequent with a cemented stem (50% vs 8.3%, p=0.04). Post-operative complications led to a total of six reoperations (4 revisions): five involved cemented stems and one involved a cementless stem (p= 0.04). Despite a low prevalence, orthopedic surgeons may encounter patients with osteopetrosis in need of THA. These patients usually present with normal general health and bone morphology as well as with normal life span. In this Canadian series, cementless implants were likely to have better 10-year survivorship when considering femoral stem revision and all cause reoperation when compared to cemented stems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic ProceedingsSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207