The Cup-Cage Reconstruction for Pelvic Discontinuity has Encouraging Patient Satisfaction and Functional Outcome at Median 6-Year Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to review the clinical, radiological and patient-reported outcomes with the use of cup-cage construct for pelvic discontinuity at our institution. METHODS: 24 patients were identified at median 6-year (minimum 2 year, maximum 10 years) follow-up. 1 patient was converted to excision arthroplasty for infection. A further 3 patients required revision for instability but the cup-cage construct was not revised. RESULTS: We noted encouraging pain relief (mean WOMAC pain 85.6) and good functional outcome (mean WOMAC function 78.2, mean UCLA 5, mean OHS 78.6). Patient satisfaction with regards pain relief, function and return to recreational activities were noted to be good. CONCLUSIONS: The cup-cage construct is a viable method of dealing with complex pelvic discontinuity. However, the failure rate due to loosening (4 cases) in this and other reports does prompt the need for further refinement of the technique and technology in this very challenging group of patients, as well as continued evaluation at the mid- and long-term so as to confirm the ongoing success of this method of reconstruction.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".