Early results of revision acetabular endoprosthetics using individual designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 3D-printed implants are one of the options for acetabulum reconstruction. The popularity of this technique is increasing every year. AIM: To evaluate the early clinical, radiological and functional results of revision arthroplasty using individual acetabular components in patients with acetabulum bone defects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Revision endoprosthetics was performed in 50 patients. There were 36 female and 14 male patients. The patients mean age was 60.413.4 (2389) years. According to the Paprosky classification, the defects in 1 case corresponded to type IIC, in 12 cases to type IIIA, in 37 cases to type IIIB, including 8 cases with violation of the acetabulum integrity. Hip joint function was assessed using the Harris Hip Score (HHS), pain severity using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and social adjustment using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). RESULTS: Significant improvement was obtained on all assessment scales. The HHS score improved on average from 33.6 to 87.1 points, the VAS scale from 78.1 to 4.7 points, and the WOMAC from 75.8 to 11.6 points. There were 8 cases (21%) with complications in total. In one case with a violation of the acetabulum integrity we observed migration of the sciatic bone from the lower flange of the construct. CONCLUSION: Thus, the results of the acetabulum reconstruction using individually fabricated acetabular components are promising.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".