The Incidence and Classification of the Severity of Heterotopic Ossification Around Femoral Endoprostheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although several studies observe and report the incidence of heterotopic ossification (HO) following total hip arthroplasty, to our knowledge, no study has characterized HO around femoral endoprostheses for reconstruction in cases of tumor resection or massive bone loss. METHODS: A grading system for HO around a femoral endoprosthesis was developed based on the Brooker Classification System. We then retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent primary femoral endoprosthetic reconstruction (proximal, distal, or total) between 2010 and 2017 with minimum 6-month follow-up at a single institution. Radiographs from the most recent follow-up were used to classify the pattern of HO using the defined classification system. Intra- and interrater reliabilities of the classification system were determined. Electronic medical records were reviewed for patient demographics and further information on treatment. RESULTS: Forty-one femoral endoprostheses in 41 patients were included (22 proximal, 15 distal, and four total femur arthroplasties). Mean age at surgery was 53 ± 23 years (range 9 to 91 years), and 22 were female (54%). Inter- and intrarater agreement for HO classification was 87% (κ = 0.82) and 91% (κ = 0.88), respectively. In total, an 83% incidence of HO was found after femoral endoprosthetic arthroplasty. All proximal femur arthroplasties and 66.7% of distal femoral arthroplasties exhibited some degree of HO. Patients with HO were markedly older than those without (57 ± 21 vs. 30 ± 19; P = 0.003). DISCUSSION: The proposed classification system has high reproducibility and agreement. Our data suggest that HO is very common after femoral endoprosthetic reconstruction and is more predominant around the hip compared with the knee. Most HO was noted around the diaphyseal stem of the prosthesis and away from the joint.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".