Comparison of Porous Tantalum Acetabular Implants and Harrington Reconstruction for Metastatic Disease of the Acetabulum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The periacetabular region is a common location for metastatic disease. Although large lytic acetabular defects are commonly treated with a hip arthroplasty with a cemented component according to a Harrington-style reconstruction, the use of highly porous uncemented tantalum acetabular components has been described. Currently, there are no direct comparisons of these reconstructive techniques. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of the Harrington technique and tantalum acetabular component reconstruction for periacetabular metastases. METHODS: From 2 tertiary sarcoma centers, we retrospectively reviewed 115 patients (70 female and 45 male) with an acetabular metastatic defect who had been treated between 2002 and 2015 with a total hip arthroplasty using either the cemented Harrington technique (78 patients) or a tantalum acetabular reconstruction (37 patients). The mean patient age was 61 years, and the most common Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status was 3 (39 patients). The mean follow-up for surviving patients was 4 years. RESULTS: An additional surgical procedure was performed in 24 patients (21%). Harrington-style reconstructions were more likely to require a reoperation compared with tantalum reconstructions (hazard ratio [HR], 4.59; p = 0.003). The acetabular component was revised in 13 patients (11%); 5 patients (4%) underwent revisions that were due to loosening of the acetabular component. The 10-year cumulative incidence of revision of the acetabular component for loosening was 9.6% in the Harrington group and 0% in the tantalum group (p = 0.09). The mean Harris hip score significantly improved following reconstruction (31 to 67 points; p < 0.001), with no significant difference (p = 0.29) between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with periacetabular metastatic disease treated with total hip arthroplasty, an acetabular reconstruction strategy utilizing highly porous tantalum acetabular components and augments successfully provided patients with a more durable construct with fewer complications compared with the cemented Harrington-style technique. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".