Trabecular Metal Augments for Severe Acetabular Defects in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A Long-Term Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Paprosky type IIIa and IIIb acetabular defects remain technically challenging during revision hip arthroplasty. Numerous surgical options exist to counter extensive acetabular bone loss with high postoperative complication and revision rates reported. Our aim was to report comprehensive long-term outcomes of our experience with Trabecular Metal (TM) augments for these difficult cases. METHODS: 38 patients underwent revision total hip arthroplasty at our institution from 2009 to 2014 where a TM augment was used for acetabular deficiency. Prospective radiographic and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures were recorded and analyzed to a mean of 7.3 years (range: 5.4 to 10.8). RESULTS: No patient was excluded or lost to follow-up. Complications included 3 intraoperative fractures, 1 early infection requiring washout with implant retention, 1 early revision due to allograft resorption, and 6 patients who required late repeat revision surgery: 3 for late infection, 2 for aseptic loosening with augment fracture or dislocation, and 1 for recurrent dislocation. The estimated mean implant survivorship was 8.99 years. 93.5% of augments remaining were well osseointegrated while 97% of the acetabular shells were osseointegrated. Hip center of rotation was restored by a mean of 14 mm inferiorly without significant medialization. Short Form-12 (SF-12) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores were significantly reduced postoperatively to a level comparable to the average individual. CONCLUSION: This long-term study details our experience of TM augments for the most severe acetabular defects. For such cases, no excellent surgical solution exists; in comparison to alternative methods, we advocate that this technique is reasonably safe and effective.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".