Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The management of acetabular bone defects presents a challenge \nin revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Porous tantalum acetabular \nimplants provide a potential solution for dealing with significant acetabular \nbone loss. Tantalum acetabular implants are characterized by higher friction, \nhigher porosity, and greater osteoconductivity than titanium mesh or \nchrome-cobalt beads. \nAim: The aim of this study was to assess the early clinical and radiological \noutcome of revision of acetabular components using trabecular metal (TM) \ncups and augments for acetabular reconstruction. \nMaterial and methods: The study included 30 consecutive patients, 15 males \nand 15 females, with failed acetabular components after total hip arthroplasty. \nMean age at the time of surgery was 67,5 years. Median follow up was 18 \nmonths (range, 12-24 months). All patients had conventional radiographs in \nanteroposterior (AP) view of the pelvis and lateral view of the hip in both preoperative \ne follow-up evaluations. According to Paprosky classification a Type \nII (10 IIa, 7 IIb, 7 IIc) defect was found in 24 hips, whereas a Paprosky type III \n(4 IIIa, 3 IIIb) defect was present in 7 hips. 16 patients had CT and Angio CT \nscan of the pelvis. All 30 patients underwent revision THA surgery using a trabecular \nmetal acetabular shell, whereas in 6 cases augments were associated. \nIn 3 cases were required cages. Patients were clinically evaluated according \nto Western Ontario and McMaster Universities scores score at 1 months, at \n6 months and then at 1 year. Radiological evaluation investigated the restore \nof hip center of rotation, and signs of radiolucent lines and loosening. \nResults: At the most recent follow-up, 19 patients showed excellent results \naccording to the WOMAC score, whereas 11 patient showed limitation in gait \nand function. The acetabular components and augments appeared osteointegrated, \nand no sign of loosening and radiolucent lines were found. There \nwere no cases of hip dislocation. Conclusions: Based on these early clinical and radiological results, TM acetabular \ncomponents and augments for acetabular defects (Paprosky II and \nIII) appear to be a promising solution for this complex situation. We continue \nto monitor these patients, and a larger series with longer follow-up will be \nrequired to determine the long-term outcome of these augments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".