{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026160337552742614, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02531645569620253, 'mean_word_length': 5.445652173913044, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of Cemented versus Uncemented Acetabular Component Positioning Using an Imageless Navigation System. Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon

(2008) Comparison of cemented versus uncemented acetabular component positioning using an imageless navigation system. The Journal of Arthroplasty In Press. of cemented versus uncemented acetabular component positioning using an imageless navigation system. Abstract Hip Navigation was used as an assessment tool to compare ability to reproduce trial and definitive acetabular placement in total hip replacement, using cemented and uncemented components. We demonstrated a significant difference in reproducibility between components. Four of 20 (20%) uncemented cups deviated from the target inclination by 5 degrees or more compared to none of 21 in the cemented group (p=0.048). Seven of the 20 (35%) of the uncemented cups deviated from the target version by 5 degrees or more compared to none of 21 in the cemented group (p=0.003). This may explain higher rates of revision for dislocation with uncemented components. There was also a significant difference between the groups with regard to deviation from planned leg length (p<0.001).