Porous tantalum uncemented acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Reconstruction of the acetabulum after failed total hip arthroplasty (THA) can be a surgical challenge in the presence of severe bone loss. We report the long-term survival of a porous tantalum revision acetabular component, its radiological appearance and quality of life outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the results of 46 patients who had undergone revision of a failed acetabular component with a Paprosky II or III bone defect and reconstruction with a hemispherical, tantalum acetabular component, supplementary screws and a cemented polyethylene liner. RESULTS: After a minimum follow-up of ten years (ten to 12), the survivorship of the porous tantalum acetabular component was 96%, with further revision of the acetabular component as the end point. The ten-year survivorship, with hip revision for any reason as the end point, was 92%. We noted excellent pain relief (mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score pain 92.6, (40 to 100)) and good functional outcomes (mean WOMAC function 90.3 (30.9 to 100), mean University of California Los Angeles activity scale 5 (2 to 10)) and generic quality of life measures (mean Short Form-12 (SF-12) physical component 48.3 (18.1 to 56.8), mean SF-12 mental component 56.7 (32.9 to 70.3)). Patient satisfaction with pain relief, function and return to recreational activities were excellent. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Uncemented acetabular reconstruction using a tantalum acetabular component gives excellent clinical and quality of life outcomes at a minimum follow-up of ten years. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:767-71.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".