Salvage of Failed Acetabular Cages by Nonbuttressed Trabecular Metal Cups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Acetabular revision of failed cages or rings may be facilitated by previously placed bone graft, enabling the use of highly porous cementless hemispheric cups. We retrospectively reviewed all 15 patients who had conversion of failed antiprotrusion cages (10 patients) or roof rings (five patients) to cementless cups. All patients had restoration of bone stock (three major column, eight morselized, four combined bone grafts) performed in conjunction with their index cage or ring reconstruction arthroplasty. The minimum followup was 24 months (average, 48.3 months; range, 24-72 months). Failure was defined as radiographic cup migration. In 12 of the 15 patients, there was no radiographic change in cup position at the last followup or symptoms indicative of loosening. The average Harris hip scores improved from 31 (range, 15-48) to 69 (range, 56-87) at latest followup. Cup failure occurred in three patients. In two patients, the failed cups were revised; the third patient refused additional surgery. Our experience suggests treatment of failed cages by highly porous cementless cups is a reasonable option. However, we recommend patients be followed closely to detect cup migration, which can occur until satisfactory bony ingrowth occurs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See the 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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".