Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with Severe Acetabular Defect: A Preliminary Exploration and Attempt of Robotic‐Assisted Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted technology may be useful in hip revision cases with acetabular defects. However, data on the use of robotic-assisted technology for such complex diseases is lacking. CASE PRESENTATION: This case study described the adoption of MAKO robotic-assisted treatment of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) combined with severe acetabular defect (Paprosky type IIIB). Robotic-assisted technology accurately achieved preoperative planning; the acetabular component and augment were placed in the original position and angle as planned. Robotic-assisted acetabular reaming was successful in a single pass, preserving the remaining acetabular bone mass very well with no procedure-related complications. The Harris Hip Score (HHS) at 6 months postoperatively was 84 and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index was 24. CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted technology can help in the accurate reconstruction of acetabular defect in complex hip revision surgery.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".