MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309862273 · doi:10.1111/os.13577

Extended Fixation for Paprosky Type <scp>III</scp> Acetabular Defects in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with a Minimum Follow‐Up of 2 Years

2022· article· en· W4309862273 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hao Tang, Yong Huang, Yixin Zhou, Zhuyi Ma, Shengjie Guo

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Surgery · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBeijing Municipal Administration of HospitalsBeijing Municipal Health CommissionNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMedicineFixation (population genetics)SurgeryHarris Hip ScoreRadiographyArthroplastyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Revision of total hip arthroplasty for patients with severe acetabular bone defects is challenging. This study aims to report the minimum 2 years outcome of the iliac extended fixation technique in patients with Paprosky type III acetabular defects. METHODS: Fifty-seven revision total hip arthroplasty patients were retrospectively reviewed who underwent reconstruction with the concept of iliac extended fixation from 2014 to 2017 in our hospital. We proposed a new concept of "iliac extended fixation" in revision total hip arthroplasty as fixation extending superiorly 2 cm beyond the original acetabular rim with porous metal augments, which was further classified into intracavitary and extracavitary fixation. Patients were assessed using the Harris Hip Score and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Score. Radiographs and patient-reported satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS: At an average follow-up of 63 months (range 25-88 months), the postoperative Harris Hip Score and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores were significantly improved at the last follow-up (p < 0.001). The center of rotation was significantly improved (p < 0.05). Fifty-three (93.0%) patients were satisfied with the outcome. The extracavitary iliac extended fixation group had higher rate of osteointegration in zone 1A (the superior lateral zone) than the intracavitary iliac extended fixation group (82.3% vs 55.0%, p = 0.015), and significantly more horizontal screws fixation (5.1 ± 24.7° vs 42.3 ± 36.8°, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Intracavitary and extracavitary iliac extended fixation with porous metal augments and cementless cups are effective in reconstructing severe superior acetabular bone defects. The difference in screw direction might reflect the different biomechanics of augment fixation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic SurgerySame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207