Acetabular Liner With Focal Constraint to Prevent Dislocation After THA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dislocation continues to commonly cause failure after primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Fully constrained liners intended to prevent dislocation are nonetheless associated with a substantial incidence of failure by redislocation, mechanical failure, aseptic loosening, or a combination. Constrained liners with cutouts of the elevated rims can theoretically increase range of movement and therefore decrease the risk dislocation, but it is unclear if they do so in practice and whether they are associated with early wear or loosening. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore determined (1) occurrence or recurrence of dislocation and (2) rate of complications associated with constrained implants with cutouts; and (3) assessed for early cup loosening. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 81 patients at high risk for dislocation who had 82 constrained liners inserted for primary (n = 10) or revision (n = 72) THA between 2008 and 2010. From the records we extracted demographic and implant data and instances of recurrent dislocation, implant failure, osteolysis, loosening, or construct failure. The minimum followup was 24 months (mean, 34 months; range, 24-49 months). RESULTS: Three liners failed as a result of further dislocation (3%). Three deep infections occurred. One patient had progressive loosening at the shell-bone interface. CONCLUSIONS: Our observations suggest this liner is associated with a relatively low risk of dislocation in patients at high risk for dislocation and those with recurrent dislocation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".