The Impact of Implant Fixation Type on Reoperation Rates Following Endoprosthetic Reconstruction Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prospective evidence supporting the use of cemented or uncemented implants in endoprosthetic reconstruction is lacking. The present study aimed to determine the effect of cemented fixation compared with uncemented fixation on the rate of all-cause reoperation at 1 year postoperatively. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of the Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens In Tumor Surgery (PARITY) trial. A total of 503 patients who underwent surgical excision and endoprosthetic reconstruction of a lower-extremity bone tumor were included in this analysis. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was utilized to assess the independent relationship between fixation group and implant survivorship, with all-cause reoperation as the end point. RESULTS: There were 388 cemented implants and 115 uncemented implants. Participants had a mean age of 42.7 years (standard deviation, 22.0 years), and 59% were male. Overall, 131 reoperations were identified over the 1-year follow-up period. There were no significant differences found in all-cause reoperation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.57; p = 0.761), septic reoperation, or aseptic reoperation between cemented and uncemented fixation at 1 year postoperatively. The Cox regression analysis demonstrated that total operative time (HR per hour, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.20; p = 0.019) was an independent predictor of reoperation. The risk of reoperation was lower in patients with benign aggressive disease (HR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.80; p = 0.029) or metastatic bone disease (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.85; p = 0.023). Patients who underwent cemented fixation showed clinically meaningful functional improvement at 1 year postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Cemented compared with uncemented fixation has no effect on 1-year all-cause reoperation rates in endoprosthetic reconstruction surgery. Further research is required to investigate the long-term survival of cemented versus uncemented implants. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".