The Natural History of Inflammatory Pseudotumors in Asymptomatic Patients After Metal-on-metal Hip Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although pseudotumors have been reported in 32% of asymptomatic metal-on-metal hips, the natural history of asymptomatic pseudotumors is unknown. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this study was to assess changes over time in asymptomatic pseudotumors and the effect of revision on pseudotumor mass. METHODS: Followup ultrasound was performed a mean of 25.8 months (range, 21-31 months) after the detection of 15 pseudotumors and five isolated fluid collections in a cohort of 20 asymptomatic patients (13 metal-on-metal, three metal-on-polyethylene, and four hip resurfacings) [42]. Changes in pseudotumors and fluid collections size and nature, and serum ion levels were determined. RESULTS: Among the 15 nonrevised patients, pseudotumors increased in size in six (four solid and two cystic) of 10 patients, three of which had clinically important increases (13-148 cm(3); 28-74 cm(3); 47-104 cm(3)). Three pseudotumors (one solid and two cystic) disappeared completely (the largest measured 31 cm(3)). One solid pseudotumor decreased in size (24 to 18 cm(3)). In five revised patients, pseudotumors completely disappeared in four patients. The fifth patient had two masses that decreased from 437 cm(3) to 262 cm(3) and 43 cm(3) to 25 cm(3). All revision patients had a reduction of chromium (40.42 μ/L to 2.69 μ/L) and cobalt ions (54.19 μ/L to 0.64 μ/L). Of five isolated fluid collections, four completely disappeared (two metal-on-metal and two metal-on-polyethylene) and one (metal-on-metal) increased from 26 cm(3) to 136 cm(3). CONCLUSIONS: Our observations suggest pseudotumors frequently increase in size in asymptomatic patients with occasional remission of small masses. Revision resulted in remission of pseudotumors.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".