Pelvic Reconstruction for Massive Acetabular Insufficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Joint reconstruction for pelvic discontinuity because of massive acetabular insufficiency presents a significant surgical challenge. Using retrograde-inserted Steinmann pins to rebuild the dome may be associated with early implant failure because of insufficient mechanical stability and neurovascular injury resulting from pin misplacement. Retrograde pins cannot be placed completely across the pelvic defect. We hypothesized that large Steinmann pins placed anterograde under direct vision from the iliac crest completely across the acetabular column and floor defects would minimize the risk of early failure, and could be placed safely without the use of fluoroscopy in combination with a posterior hip approach. The purpose of our study was to review the mechanical failure and complication rates of nine patients (10 hips) treated between 1996 and 2002 for pelvic discontinuity using this pin placement technique to reinforce a cemented roof ring hip reconstruction done via a posterior approach. None of the patients had implant loosening or failure, there were no neurovascular complications, and no perioperative deaths. One patient required cup revision for recurrent dislocation. All patients were bedridden or wheelchair-bound before surgery, but regained independent household walking by 6 weeks postoperatively. Reinforcing the acetabulum with a lattice girder of anterograde pins provides safe and effective hip reconstruction.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".