Femoral head reposition first, device assemble later: If reduction is impossible when using MUTARS®
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Dislocation occurs in about 1% after a total hip arthroplasty, but the frequency is much higher after revision surgery. To prevent dislocation, a procedure using a larger femoral head has been recommended, and dual mobility femoral head has been introduced to broaden its indications. However, it is very difficult to reduce the dual mobility femoral head to the acetabular component with contracture in the soft tissue around the joint. A 72-year-old male patient developed a periprosthetic fracture (Vancouver type B3) in his femur and underwent revision surgery using MUTARS®. Three years later, periprosthetic joint infection developed and 2 stage revision was performed. Dislocation of the artificial joint two months after the revision was happen and manual reduction was performed, but dislocation occurs again. New revision was undergone using dual mobility bearing. During surgery, the soft tissue around the hip joint was too tight to reduce, the problem could be overcome by first repositioning the femoral head and then assembling the diaphyseal portion of the implant.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
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".