Functional outcome after acetabular revision with roof reinforcement rings.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role for potential predictors of functional outcome after acetabular arthroplasty and to assess the results of revision with the use of a roof reinforcement ring. DESIGN: A retrospective case series. SETTING: A tertiary-care referral centre. PATIENTS: Twenty-four patients (average age 72.7 years) who had undergone acetabular revision with a roof reinforcement ring were followed up for an average of 2.8 years. INTERVENTIONS: Revision acetabular arthroplasty was performed using either the Mueller or Burch Schneider roof reinforcement ring, bone grafting and a cemented polyethylene cup. OUTCOME MEASURES: A modified Harris hip score (range of motion omitted), the SF-36 health survey and the Western Ontario McMaster (WOMAC) osteoarthritis index measured outcome. Multivariate analysis was used to determine the effects of certain clinical factors (age, sex, time to revision from previous hip operation and number of previous revisions) on outcome. RESULTS: Patients reported disability both on hip-specific and general health measures. The time to revision from previous operation positively correlated with SF-36 mental component scores (p = 0.003), WOMAC function (p = 0.04) and WOMAC pain (p = 0.03). Age, gender and number of past revisions did not affect outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who undergo acetabular revision with a roof ring will continue to have some disability in the first 3 years after the procedure. A greater time between the previous operation and the revision operation is associated with a better outcome. Patients' expectations of postoperative results should be realistic in the face of a challenging reconstructive procedure.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".