Role of Cages in Revision Arthroplasty of the Acetabulum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
➤ The outcome of acetabular revision is heavily influenced by the degree of associated bone loss.➤ Uncemented hemispherical acetabular components can be used in the majority of acetabular revisions, although occasionally the degree of bone loss precludes the stability of the hemispherical component at the correct anatomic level or there is minimal bleeding host bone left for biologic fixation.➤ Massive acetabular bone loss resulting in the need for bone grafts or highly porous augments involving more than half of the acetabulum is one of the main indications for the use of cages.➤ The cup-cage reconstruction is based on bone-grafting the deficient acetabulum and securing a hemispherical, highly porous metal component with multiple screws to bridge the discontinuity and off-loading the hemispherical component with a titanium cage spanning from ischium to ilium.➤ In addition to managing pelvic discontinuities, the cup-cage construct can also be used in hips without discontinuity as the hemispherical, highly porous metal component is used to restore bone stock.➤ In situations in which there is not enough bleeding host bone to secure a hemispherical component, a highly porous metal augment can be used to address the osseous deficiency. The augment is also protected with a cage to assist bone ingrowth.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".