Cup revision involving retention of a fixed but malpositioned acetabular component in patients with poor general conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the surgical technique and outcomes of cup revision involving retention of a fixed but malpositioned acetabular component in patients with poor general conditions.Between 2007 and 2013, we performed cup revision on 12 hips while retaining a fixed (either cemented or uncemented) but malpositioned acetabular component. Indications for this technique were: malpositioned but fixed acetabular shell; sufficient space for the insertion of the prosthesis; and patients with poor general conditions. After intraoperative confirmation of shell stability, a replacement liner was oriented in a new plane. Clinical and imaging data were collected perioperatively and during follow-up for evaluation of surgical efficacy.No intraoperative complications were encountered. Mean operative duration was 70.4 minutes (range, 45-90 minutes) and mean estimated blood loss was 729 mL (range, 400-1200 mL). Mean follow-up duration was 5.1 years (range, 2.5-8.5 years). Average visual analog scale score decreased from (7.08 ± 1.00) preoperatively to (1.42 ± 0.67) at final follow-up (P < .05). Average Harris Hip Score improved from (14.7 ± 6.58) preoperatively to (80.9 ± 5.30) at final follow-up (P < .05). Anteversions and inclinations of new liners were (15.1 ± 2.3)° and (46.4 ± 3.9)° respectively. Postoperative radiographs showed no signs of prosthesis loosening, periprosthetic fractures, or dislocation compared with preoperatively.The short-term efficacy of cup revision with retention of a malpositioned but fixed acetabular component was satisfactory.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".