Tantalum Augments Combined with Antiprotrusio Cages for Massive Acetabular Defects in Revision Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tantalum components have gained popularity for the management of Paprosky type IIIA and IIIB defects during revision total hip arthroplasty. Although the use of antiprotrusio cages solely shows suboptimal results, there are certain defects that still require their use. We hypothesized that combining tantalum augments and an antiprotrusio cage would (1) improve radiographic stability, (2) enhance survivorship, (3) decrease complications, and (4) improve clinical outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 20 patients with Paprosky type IIIA or IIIB defects who underwent revision of the acetabular component with a highly porous tantalum augment and an antiprotrusio cage combination. Preoperative and postoperative radiographs, survivorship free from aseptic component revision, and the Harris Hip Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and Short Form-36 scores were analyzed. The mean follow-up was 2.8 years. RESULTS: At the most recent follow-up, no antiprotrusio cages had migrated and all tantalum augments had radiographic evidence of osseointegration. In addition, only 2 components were revised for aseptic etiologies and only 1 was loose. Both were revised secondary to failures of the inferior flange of the antiprotrusio cage. All clinical outcome scores significantly improved postoperatively. Finally, the risk of major postoperative complications was noted to be 10%. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, a tantalum augment combined with an antiprotrusio cage in Paprosky IIIA and IIIB defects with divergent anatomy not amenable to a hemispherical socket provides a reliable technique to restore the anatomic hip center and prevent superior migration and provides a bony ingrowth surface. Longer term follow-up is required before the technique is widely adapted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic studies.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".