Compressive osseointegration endoprosthesis for massive bone loss in the upper extremity: surgical technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundReconstruction of large segments of bone loss can be very difficult. The use of a prestressed ingrowth implant can offer an attractive surgical option in these challenging cases.MethodsThis report describes the surgical technique in depth, combining the experience of the authors. Nuances of the technique are emphasized.ResultsAlthough published reports are uncommon, long-term restoration of extremity function is possible with this technology.ConclusionsThe use of compressive osseointegration endoprostheses is not yet widespread in the upper extremity, but this technology adds to the host of surgical options for managing massive bone loss and difficult revision surgery. Reconstruction of large segments of bone loss can be very difficult. The use of a prestressed ingrowth implant can offer an attractive surgical option in these challenging cases. This report describes the surgical technique in depth, combining the experience of the authors. Nuances of the technique are emphasized. Although published reports are uncommon, long-term restoration of extremity function is possible with this technology. The use of compressive osseointegration endoprostheses is not yet widespread in the upper extremity, but this technology adds to the host of surgical options for managing massive bone loss and difficult revision surgery.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".