Reconstruction for Massive Proximal Tibial Bone Defects Using Patient‐Customized Three‐Dimensional‐Printed Metaphyseal Cones in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the clinical outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA) with massive proximal tibial bone defects using patient-customized three-dimensional (3D) printed highly porous metaphyseal cones. METHODS: A retrospective study of all patients at our institution who underwent RTKA with the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute type III tibial defects using patient-customized 3D-printed highly porous metaphyseal cones was performed from 2016 to 2018. Seven patients were enrolled in this study. General results (age, sex, and body mass index); intraoperative results (interface compatibility and stability, and operating time); and perioperative complications (total blood loss, blood transfusion rate, and deep venous thrombosis) were recorded and analyzed. Clinical improvement and functional evaluation (survivorship of implant, improvement of Hospital for Special Surgery Score and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and improvement of range of motion [ROM]), and radiographic improvement and implant evaluation (progressive radiolucent lines or radiographic loosening, and mechanical alignment) were evaluated at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and then annually, postoperatively. RESULTS: The mean age at diagnosis was 68 (61-77) years. The mean follow-up was 25.3 (19-36) months. At the latest follow-up, no aseptic loosening, prosthetic joint infection, or other complications were noted. The mean Hospital for Special Surgery Score increased from 49 (39-63) to 78 (70-83) (P < 0.01), whereas the mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index increased from 59 (46-73) to 26 (12-38) (P < 0.01). All patients achieved improved postoperative ROM with the mean flexion angle increasing from 66° (30°-80°) to 93° (80°-100°), and improved mechanical alignment with all hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angles within ±3°. CONCLUSIONS: The patient-customized 3D-printed metaphyseal cone is useful technique for reconstructing massive proximal tibial bone defects, with encouraging clinical and radiological outcomes in RTKA.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".