Early Experience with a Novel Nonmetallic Cable in Reconstructive Hip Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Metallic wires and cables are commonly used in primary and revision THA for fixation of periprosthetic fractures and osteotomies of the greater trochanter. These systems provide secure fixation and high healing rates but fraying, third-body generation, accelerated wear of the bearing surface, and injury to the surgical team remain concerning. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We determined the rate of cable failure, union, and complications associated with a novel, nonmetallic cerclage cable in periprosthetic fracture and osteotomy fixation during THA. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 29 patients who had primary and revision THAs using nonmetallic cables. Indications for use included fixation of an extended trochanteric osteotomy, intraoperative fracture of the proximal femur, strut allograft fixation, and a Vancouver B1 periprosthetic fracture of the femur. All patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically immediately postoperatively, at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and then annually thereafter. The minimum followup was 13 months (mean, 21 months; range, 13-30 months). RESULTS: Two of the 29 patients (7%) developed a nonunion; all remaining osteotomies, fractures and allografts had healed at the time of most recent evaluation. Four patients (14%) dislocated postoperatively; two were treated successfully with closed reduction, while the other two required reoperation. We identified no evidence of breakage or other complications directly attributable to the cables. CONCLUSIONS: The nonmetallic periprosthetic cables used in this series provided adequate fixation to allow for both osteotomy and fracture healing. We did not observe any complications directly related to the cables. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".