MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166021340

Treatment of an infected total hip replacement with the PROSTALAC system. Part 1: Infection resolution.

2007· article· en· W2166021340 on OpenAlexaff
Angela Scharfenberger, Marcia Clark, Guy Lavoie, Greg O'Connor, Edward Masson, Lauren A Beaupré

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProsthesisAntibioticsSurgeryComplicationRetrospective cohort studyTotal hip replacementMedical recordInfection control
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Infection after total hip replacement (THR) is a serious medical complication with significant negative ramifications for both the patient and the health care system. The prosthesis of antibiotic-loaded acrylic cement (PROSTALAC) was designed to treat the joint infection while maintaining functional movement in the hip. METHODS: We identified 28 patients treated for infected THR with the PROSTALAC system, by retrospective chart review. Preoperative and intraoperative cultures were taken to identify the causative organism. After PROSTALAC insertion, patients underwent at least 6 weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotics. Prior to undergoing posttreatment cultures, patients were required to be antibiotic-free for a minimum of 6 weeks, with normal laboratory values. We defined resolution infection as retention of a joint prosthesis for a minimum of 2 years. RESULTS: Infection was identified in 28 patients in either the joint aspirate or intraoperative cultures. Of these patients, 2 failed to clear infection, requiring repeat PROSTALAC insertion. Two additional patients had positive 48-hour cultures post-second stage, treated with additional IV antibiotics. Retention of the post-PROSTALAC prosthesis is 100% at 2 years. CONCLUSION: PROSTALAC has acceptable infection resolution outcomes and appears effective for treating infected THR.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations57
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicOrthopedic Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207