Reduction of the Femoral Head First, and Assembly of the MUTARS<sup>®</sup> Device in Case of Impossible Reduction during Total Hip Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The frequency of dislocation after primary hip arthroplasty is approximately 1%; however, it can be as high as 39% in cases involving revision surgery 1,2) .Although various methods have been used to prevent dislocation, a sim-ple method that can be applied during performance of surgery is to increase the jump distance using the largest possible head 3) .The use of dual mobility bearing is a suitable method for achieving this goal 4) .However, reducing the dual mobility femoral head to the acetabular component is difficult in the case of contracture in the soft tissue around the joint 4,5) .Jump distance refers to the amount of lateral movement of the femoral head center needed to cause its dislocation from the acetabular cup.The larger the jump distance, the lower the risk of dislocation.Dual mobility bearings are designed to provide the arthroplasty construct with a higher jump distance in order to increase hip stability 6) .Periprosthetic fracture of the femur, Vancouver type B3 is an indication of tumor prosthesis resulting from severe bone loss around the prosthesis 7) .In this case, the Modular Universal Tumor and Revision System (MUTARS ; Implantcast GmbH)
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".