REVISION FOR CHRONIC PERI-PROSTHETIC JOINT INFECTION USING A MASSIVE ENDOPROSTHESIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Chronic prosthetic joint infection is a cause of patient morbidity and can be challenging to treat. Surgeons performing revision arthroplasty of the hip and knee are confronted with a growing number of patients with extensive loss of bone stock. The use of a modular endoprosthesis is a possible method of treatment in such patients. Aim: The purpose of this study was to assess the functional outcomes and the success of a single and two stage revision procedure in eradicating chronic prosthetic joint infection using a femoral endoprosthesis. Methods: A prospective database was reviewed of 20 patients who underwent a proximal, total or distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement after chronic prosthetic infection. Radiographs performed at the time of latest follow up were evaluated for signs of loosening, osteomyelitis and implant failure. The functional status was assessed using the Short Form (SF)-36 health survey score, Toronto extremity salvage score (TESS) and the Enneking score. Results: Thirteen patients underwent a single stage revision procedure and seven had been treated with a staged revision. At the latest follow up none of the 13 patients treated with a single stage procedure had evidence of ongoing infection. Of the seven patients who had a staged revision, 3 patients had evidence of ongoing infection. The mean pre operative Enneking score for the entire group was 17.1 points and this improved to 47.5 points post operatively (p Conclusion: We believe that the use of a modular endo-prosthesis in the treatment of chronic prosthetic joint infection is a successful and viable option in eradicating infection, preserving the limb and providing a good functional result.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".