Two-Stage Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty for Suspected Periprosthetic Joint Infection and Metal and Bone Cement Hypersensitivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypersensitivity to implant components and periprosthetic joint infection should be detected before all revision arthroplasty, as misdiagnosis can lead to replacement loosening and the need for further revision procedures. We describe the case of a 69-year-old woman presenting a history of a painful cemented total knee replacement. Postoperative investigations showed loosening of X-ray components, suspected periprosthetic joint infection, and patch test hypersensitivity to nickel sulfate and methyl methacrylate. Two months later, a more specific patch test indicated non-allergy to the solid scratch of one bone cement. The patient underwent a two-stage revision with prosthesis removal and the temporary application of a specific cement spacer followed by the successful reimplantation of a cemented revision prosthesis. All candidates for the revision arthroplasty procedure must be investigated for hypersensitivity to metal and bone cement in order to avoid complications related to prosthesis intolerance and the need for further revision surgery; in the presence of hypersensitivity to bone cement and periprosthetic joint infection with a two-stage revision indication, the patient must be submitted to further patch tests with scratches of solid bone cement.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".