The status of acetabulum in bipolar HIP replacements in orthopaedics oncology cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Bipolar hip endoprosthesis replacement is a commonly employed procedure in orthopaedic oncology that requires the resection and reconstruction of the proximal femur. With improving survival rates, issues of implant durability and acetabular wear have become increasingly important. The decision to replace the acetabulum in bipolar hip endoprosthesis replacement procedures remains a topic of debate. Aim: This study aimed to assess the prevalence of secondary osteoarthritis following bipolar hip replacement, the need for revision to total joint replacement post-procedure, the functional status of patients in relation to radiological findings of joint degeneration, and the survivorship of bipolar hip replacements. Methods: Patients with orthopaedic oncology cases who underwent bipolar hip endoprosthesis replacement between 2006 and October 2021, with a minimum follow-up of six months, were included. Both clinical and radiological evaluations were carried out. The clinical evaluation utilised the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS), Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS), and modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) systems. The radiological assessment focused on identifying acetabular erosion. Results: Forty eligible patients were identified. Radiological assessments revealed 21 patients (52.5%) with grade 0, 17 patients (42.5%) with grade 1, and 2 patients (5.0%) with grade 2 acetabular erosion. No patients exhibited grade 3 acetabular erosion. One patient (2.5%) required revision surgery from proximal femoral bipolar replacement to total hip replacement due to recurrent postoperative hip dislocation. There was no statistically significant difference in MSTS and mHHS scores but a significant difference in TESS scores. The ten-year implant survival rate was 77.8%, while the overall patient survivorship at ten years was 72.1%. Conclusion: Bipolar hip replacement is a durable limb-preserving reconstruction that can outlast patients’ lifespans and is well-tolerated by oncology patients. The incidence of acetabular erosion and revision surgery is low. Despite radiological evidence of hip degeneration, functional status in patients is not significantly impacted.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".