Cup-Cage Construct for Treatment of Severe Acetabular Bone Loss in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes at a Mean Follow-Up of 7.7 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acetabular reconstruction in the context of massive acetabular bone loss is challenging. Achieving implant stability in these situations requires special considerations. The cup-cage construct is a treatment option that addresses this issue. This study evaluates survivorship, complications, and functional outcomes using the cup-cage construct. METHODS: A total of 131 cup-cage implants (129 patients) were identified from our retrospective review of revision total hip arthroplasties from January 2003 to January 2022. Among these cases, 100 (76.3%) were women, the mean age at the time of surgery was 68 years (range, 29 to 92; SD [SD], 12.4), and the mean follow-up was 7.7 years (range, 0.02 to 20.3; SD, 5.1). Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was conducted with failure defined as revision surgery and/or failure of the cup-cage reconstruction. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 7.7 years, the cup-cage construct survivorship due to all-cause failure was 83.9% (95% CI [confidence interval]: 77.6 to 90.2) at 5 years with 88 hips at risk, 74.8% (95% CI: 66.2 to 83.4) at 10 years with 38 hips at risk, and 69.8% (95% CI: 59.4 to 80.2) at 15 years with 11 hips at risk. The survivorship due to failure from aseptic loosening was 96.7% (95% CI: 93.6 to 99.8) at 5 years with 88 hips at risk and 95.5% (95% CI: 91.6 to 99.4) at 10 and 15 years with 38 and 11 hips at risk, respectively. The revision rate for aseptic loosening of the cup and/or cage, infection, dislocation, and aseptic loosening of the femoral stem was 5 of 131 (3.8%), 12 of 131 (9.1%), 10 of 131 (7.6%), and 2 of 131 (1.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The cup-cage construct is a reliable treatment option for the treatment of various acetabular defects. There are favorable survivorship, clinical, and radiographic outcomes, with a satisfactory complication rate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".