Revision total hip arthroplasty with a modular tapered stem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Femoral stem revision surgery with proximal bone loss may be treated with modular uncemented distal fixation stems. Early results of the ZMR tapered stems with relatively fewer cases were encouraging. In this prospective study, we evaluated the 2 to 10 years survivorship, associated complications and functional outcomes of 84 cases of femoral revision using the ZMR tapered stem. The indications for revision were aseptic loosening (50), periprosthetic fracture (12), infection (17), stem fracture (4) and instability (1). The mean follow-up was 46 months (range, 25-117). The Kaplan-Meier survival with femoral re-revision for any reason as an end-point was 92.7% (95% CI: 87.7%-97.7%). The mean Harris hip score improved from 37 (10-77) points before operation to 72 (41-96) points at last follow-up. The ZMR tapered stem has shown satisfactory results in 2 to 10 years followup in various femoral stem revision conditions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".