ACETABULAR AUGMENTS USED IN REVISION HIP ARTHROPLASTY: MINIMUM TEN-YEAR FOLLOW-UP OF IMPLANT SURVIVORSHIP, FUNCTIONAL SCORES, AND RADIOLOGICAL OUTCOMES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Addressing acetabular bone loss in the context of hip revision surgeries constitutes a significant challenge in orthopedics. The use of Trabecular Metal (TM) augments emerges as a viable solution, yet there is a lack of comprehensive data detailing their long-term outcomes [1,2]. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term implant survival rates, functional outcomes, and radiographic findings associated with the use of TM augments in hip revision surgery. We conducted a retrospective review of 80 patients who underwent hip revision with TM augments over a 13-year period. Kaplan-Meier analysis was carried out, with functional outcomes assessed using the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and Oxford Hip Score (OHS). Radiographic analysis was conducted to assess incidence of osteolysis. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated impressive survival rates of 96.8% augment survival at 5 years and 92.3% at 10 years. There was a marked improvement in the functional hip scores: mean HHS rose from a pre-operative 39.35, indicative of severe pain and major functional limitations, to a 10-year post-operative 75.75, suggesting milder pain and reduced limitations. Likewise, pre-operative OHS, averaging at 15.09 (severe arthritis), improved to 36.8 (mild arthritis) at 5 years post-operation. The incidence of osteolysis was found to be 33.75% at the final radiographic follow-up. Our study validates the use of TM augments for acetabular bone loss in hip revisions. Regular patient monitoring for osteolysis and prevention of late augment failure is vital. By providing robust long-term data, this study enhances the existing body of literature, thus guiding future surgical decisions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".