Clinical and radiological outcomes of acetabular revision with the Delta Revision TT cup
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:: This study evaluates mid-term results of acetabular revision using a hemispherical acetabular cup in Trabecular Titanium with a cage construct. METHODS:: We reviewed 36 acetabular revisions performed with the Delta Revision TT cup in 34 patients (mean age = 75, range: 45-92 years). Acetabular defect types (Paprosky classification) included (1) 2B ( n = 5), (2) 2C ( n = 7), (3) 3A ( n = 15), and (4) 3B ( n = 9). Morcellised bone allografts were used in 24 cases, and synthetic bone used in 11. Outcomes were evaluated using the Harris Hip Score (HHS), and the Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) for pain measurement. X-ray visualisation of cup position was used to discern signs of mobilisation and bone graft incorporation. Survivorship at post-revision follow-up (mean = 39.8; range 12-91.5 months) was calculated. RESULTS:: HHS increased from 40.5 to 87 ( p < 0.01). 68% of cases were pain free; by comparison, 32% had an average VRS score of 1.9 (range 1-3). The average cup inclination angle was 40.8° (30-52°) postoperatively, compared with 41.2° (30-52°) at follow-up; there were no signs of loosening or mobilisation. Centre of rotation was fully restored in 21 (58.3%) hips. According to Gie classification; bone graft incorporation grades were (1) 3 ( n = 21), (2) 2 ( n = 12) and (3) 1 ( n = 2). The survival rate was 100% for aseptic loosening and 91.7% for any cause of revision. CONCLUSIONS:: The Delta Revision TT cup promises good clinical and radiographic results at short- to mid-term follow-up, with high rates of survival rate and bone integration.
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) | 0.000 | 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".