The use of an Ossis custom 3D-printed tri-flanged acetabular implant for major bone loss: minimum 2-year follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Custom 3D-printed acetabular implants are a new technology used in hip surgery with ever-increasing frequency. They offer patient-specific implants to optimise filling of bone defects and implant-bone contact, without the need for excessive bone resection. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of 46 consecutive patients who underwent an Ossis unilateral custom 3D-printed acetabular implant. Clinical (Oxford Hip Score OHS-60), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Harris Hip Score (HHS) and radiological (restoration of biomechanical hip centre, osteointegration, wear, heterotrophic ossification) results were assessed. RESULTS: Patient mean age was 68 years and follow-up was 38 months (minimum 24 months). 10 patients were excluded from the outcome analysis; 2 patients died, 1 required revision for deep infection and 7 were lost to follow-up. Of the 36 patients included, 21 had severe osteolysis. 7 were revised for infection, 3 for tumoural defects, 3 for metallosis, 1 for dysplasia and 1 for trauma (Paprosky 2a [n=6], 2b [n=2], 2c [n=5], 3a [n=6], 3b [n=11], pelvic dissociation [n=6]). OHS significantly improved postoperatively (16-8-48.4 p=0.027). Postoperative functional scores were good (WOMAC 98; HHS 79). The biomechanical hip centre was restored in all patients. 1 patient had early implant migration with subsequent stabilisation. 2 patients had radiographs concerning for failure of osteointegration. 1 patient had recurrent dislocations. CONCLUSIONS: The mid-term results of the Ossis custom 3D-printed tri-flanged acetabular implant for the management of severe acetabular defects are encouraging. The improvement in functional scores and radiographic outcomes are comparable to similar designs. In addition, no cases have required revision for aseptic loosening.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".