MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2491869332 · doi:10.1007/s11999-016-4981-2

What Is the Natural History of Asymptomatic Pseudotumors in Metal-on-metal THAs at Mid-term Followup?

2016· article· en· W2491869332 on OpenAlexaff
Sujith Konan, Clivе P. Duncan, Bassam S. Masri, Donald S. Garbuz

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsymptomaticNatural historySurgerySports medicineOrthopedic surgeryImplantInternal medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The risk of early revision because of pseudotumors in patients who have undergone large-head metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) is well documented. However, the natural history of asymptomatic pseudotumors or of MoM articulations without pseudotumors is less well understood. The aim of our study was to investigate the natural history of primary MoM THA at mid-term followup. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purposes of this study were: (1) Did previously detected pseudotumors persist or worsen in asymptomatic patients at mid-term followup; and if so, did any of them require revision THA? (2) Did new pseudotumors form in asymptomatic patients at mid-term followup? (3) What happened to serum trace metal ions at mid-term followup? (4) Were postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) maintained at mid-term followup? METHODS: Seventy-one patients who underwent a MoM THA using a Metasul LDH implant with a Durom acetabular cup and an M/L Taper stem between September 2005 and October 2008 were reviewed. All patients for this study were part of two previously published studies from our early followup. Data from the previous studies were used for comparison only. Two of the 71 patients (2.8%) were lost to followup. The mean age at operation was 56 years (range, 34-68 years). There were 24 female patients. All patients had serum trace metal ions testing, ultrasound imaging, and PROMs at a mean 3.5 years (early followup) after the index operation (range, 3-5 years) and delayed followup at a mean 7 years (range, 6.5-9 years). The indication to undertake revision THA was based on clinical evaluation and not solely on the investigation results. RESULTS: Twenty-three of 71 patients (32%) had a positive ultrasound scan for pseudotumor at early followup. Of these, eight patients underwent revision THA (11% of MoM THA or 35% of patients with an early positive ultrasound scan). The mean time between positive ultrasound scan and revision surgery was 13 months (range, 5-22 months). Of the remaining 15 patients with pseudotumor noted on early ultrasound, 12 had persistent pseudotumor, two resolved, and one was lost to followup. Six patients (13%) with a normal ultrasound scan at early followup showed new ultrasound findings at delayed followup. Of these, four (8%) were conclusively diagnosed as pseudotumor and one was revised. Serum trace metal ion increased at mid-term followup in the seven cases that showed an increase in volume of pseudotumor. Of the five patients in whom the volume of pseudotumor decreased on ultrasound at mid-term followup, three showed a decrease in serum trace ions levels, whereas two showed an increase. New-onset pseudotumors at mid-term followup was associated with an increase in serum trace metal ions at mid-term followup only in two of six cases. PROMs at mid-term followup of patients in this study remain high. CONCLUSIONS: At mid-term followup, approximately 35% of patients who develop an early pseudotumor undergo revision arthroplasty, whereas the remaining are asymptomatic. The incidence of new-onset ultrasound findings suggestive of pseudotumors at mid- to long-term followup is approximately 8% and these require continued surveillance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations23
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207