LUMiC® endoprosthesis for pelvic reconstruction: A Canadian experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The LUMiC® prosthesis was introduced to reduce the mechanical complications encountered with periacetabular reconstruction after pelvic tumor resection. Few have evaluated the outcomes associated with its use. METHODS: A retrospective study from five Orthopedic Oncology Canadian centers was conducted. All patients with a LUMiC® endoprosthesis were included. Their charts were reviewed for surgical and functional outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 16 patients were followed for 28 months (3-60). A total of 12 patients (75%) had a LUMiC® after a resection of a primary sarcoma. Mean surgical time was 555 min. Four patients (25%) had a two-stages procedure. MSTS score was 60.3 preoperatively and 54.3 postoperatively. Patients got a dual mobility bearing and the silver coated implant was used in 7 patients (43.7%). Five patients (31.3%) underwent capsular reconstruction using a fabric. Silver-coating was not found to reduce infection risk (p = 0.61) and capsuloplasty did not prevent dislocation (p = 0.6). Five patients had peroperative complications (31.3%). Eight patients (50%) had an infection including all four with two-stages surgery. Dislocation occurred in five patients (31.3%) whereas no cases of aseptic loosening were reported. A total of 10 patients (62.5%) needed a reoperation. CONCLUSION: LUMiC® endoprosthesis provides low rates of aseptic loosening on medium-term follow-up. Infection and dislocation are common complications but we were unable to show benefits of capsuloplasty and silver-coated implants.
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) | 0.002 | 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".