Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with Use of a Cemented Femoral Component
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Revision of the femoral component of a total hip replacement with use of cement has been associated with early mechanical failure due to aseptic loosening. The purpose of the present study was to determine the long-term survival after revision of the femoral component with cement and to identify factors that were predictive of failure. METHODS: The results of 129 revision total hip arthroplasties that had been performed with use of a cemented femoral stem were reviewed to determine component survival. Ninety-seven hips that had been followed for a minimum of five years were included in survival analysis and tests of significance. Harris hip scores were used to quantify clinical outcomes. Clinical and surgical factors were analyzed to determine whether they were predictive of failure. RESULTS: The mean Harris hip score improved from 52 points preoperatively to 71 points at the time of the most recent follow-up (p < 0.001). The ten-year survival rate was 91% with rerevision of the femoral component because of aseptic loosening as the end point and 71% with mechanical failure as the end point. Patients who were more than sixty years old had greater long-term component survival and less pain than younger patients did (p < 0.05). A good-quality postoperative cement mantle was associated with better long-term radiographic signs of fixation (p < 0.001). Poor femoral bone quality was associated with an increased rate of rerevision for aseptic loosening (p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Revision with use of a cemented femoral component remains an option for selected patients, with an acceptable ten-year survival rate and fair radiographic evidence of fixation. Our patients had acceptable clinical outcomes at ten years, and few had notable pain. The best results may be achieved in older patients (those who are sixty years old or more) with adequate bone stock who are managed with modern cementing techniques.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".