MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How Often Do Acetabular Erosions Occur After Bipolar Hip Endoprostheses in Patients With Malignant Tumors and Are Erosions Associated With Outcomes Scores?

2018· article· en· W2804689355 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew T. Houdek, Peter S. Rose, Peter C. Ferguson, Franklin H. Sim, Anthony M. Griffin, Mario Hevesi, Jay S. Wunder

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcetabulumOrthopedic surgeryHip painRadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Bipolar endoprosthetic replacement is an option for reconstruction of the proximal femur to restore a functional extremity and salvage the limb. However, because these patients are young, there is a theoretical risk for long-term degenerative changes of the acetabulum. Currently, there is a paucity of data concerning the proportion of patients who experience degenerative acetabulum changes after reconstruction and whether these changes are associated with Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What proportion of patients develop acetabular cartilage degeneration after bipolar hemiarthroplasty for malignant tumor-related reconstructions? (2) What is the survivorship free from revision for acetabular wear, erosions, or progressive arthritis? (3) Is there an association between the presence of acetabular erosions and lower MSTS scores? METHODS: Between 2000 and 2015, 148 patients underwent endoprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal femur with a bipolar hemiarthroplasty for a malignant tumor and were potentially eligible for this retrospective study. Minimum followup was 1 year except for those who died or were revised earlier; of the 148, no patients were lost to followup before that time who were not known to have died; mean followup on the remainder was 79 months (range, 12-220 months), and the mean time to death after surgery for those who died was 28 months (range, 0-196 months). Over the course of the study, 93 (63%) patients died. The mean (± SD) patient age was 57 ± 17 years, and 55% (81 of 148) of the patients were men. We used magnification-corrected supine AP plain radiographs of the hip to evaluate degenerative acetabulum changes, and we used the 1993 MSTS score to assess function through chart review and a longitudinally maintained institutional database. We used a competing-risks survivorship estimator rather than Kaplan-Meier because of the high proportion of patients who had died during the surveillance period. RESULTS: Nineteen patients (13%) developed cartilage erosion > 2 mm in the acetabulum, with two also developing protrusio after proximal femoral replacement with a bipolar endoprosthesis. Three additional patients also developed signs of protrusio. The mean acetabular wear after bipolar replacement was 1.2 mm. Patients with longer followup (p = 0.001) were at higher risk for developing acetabular wear. Six patients underwent conversion to THA to treat hip pain. At 10 years the cumulative incidence for conversion to THA for acetabular wear is 5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0%-11%), whereas the cumulative incidence of death was 70% (95% CI, 61%-79%). There was no difference in mean MSTS scores between patients who developed > 2 mm of acetabular erosion (65% ± 25%) and those who did not (67% ± 20%; p = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Wear was uncommon among patients with malignant hip tumors treated with bipolar endoprostheses, but the followup here was short, and some patients indeed developed wear and underwent wear-related revisions to THA. Patients expected to survive more than a few years should have periodic radiographic surveillance and should be followed for a longer period to get a better sense for whether the problem worsens with time, as we expect it may, among patients who survive for longer periods. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicManagement of metastatic bone diseaseFrench-language works237,207