Repair of joint (procedure) - v1.0
Status | Ready for review |
|---|---|
Version | 0.6 |
Descriptions:
Term | description type | Language/acceptability | Language/acceptability | Case significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FSN | us:P | gb:P | ci |
| PT | us:P | gb:P | ci |
example:
Concept model:
Attribute Group Cardinality | Attribute Cardinality | Attribute in Group Cardinality | Attribute | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
0..0 | 1..1 |
|
{"timestamp":1792075899273,"msg":"A unknown Exception Occurred","errorMsg":"The provided AtlassianHostUser did not specify a user to act as.","code":"500"} |
{"timestamp":1792075899351,"msg":"A unknown Exception Occurred","errorMsg":"The provided AtlassianHostUser did not specify a user to act as.","code":"500"} |
0..1 | 0..1 |
|
{"timestamp":1792075899243,"msg":"A unknown Exception Occurred","errorMsg":"The provided AtlassianHostUser did not specify a user to act as.","code":"500"} |
{"timestamp":1792075899321,"msg":"A unknown Exception Occurred","errorMsg":"The provided AtlassianHostUser did not specify a user to act as.","code":"500"} |
1..* |
| 1..1 |
{"timestamp":1792075899257,"msg":"A unknown Exception Occurred","errorMsg":"The provided AtlassianHostUser did not specify a user to act as.","code":"500"} | {"timestamp":1792075899353,"msg":"A unknown Exception Occurred","errorMsg":"The provided AtlassianHostUser did not specify a user to act as.","code":"500"} |
| 1..1 |
{"timestamp":1792075899308,"msg":"A unknown Exception Occurred","errorMsg":"The provided AtlassianHostUser did not specify a user to act as.","code":"500"} |
{"timestamp":1792075899347,"msg":"A unknown Exception Occurred","errorMsg":"The provided AtlassianHostUser did not specify a user to act as.","code":"500"} | |
| 0..1 | |||
| 0..1 | |||
| 0..1 |
| ||
| 0..1 | |||
| 0..1 | |||
| 0..1 | |||
| 0..1 | |||
0..* |
| 0..1 | ||
| 1..1 | |||
| 0..1 | |||
| 0..1 | |||
| 0..1 | OR OR | ||
| 0..1 |
| ||
| 0..1 |
| ||
| 0..1 |
| ||
| 0..1 |
| ||
| 0..1 | |||
| 0..1 |
Definition status:
Applies to:
Template language:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MkfRyfrEmtCr6fWiM4LD2C-LgyosYBucpj6P6Y-7ml8/edit#gid=0 33 concepts
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_-QPUc59qOpOmWKHR9OG_v_r4gujo30UftMKL4cj2po/edit#gid=0 19 concepts
Link to the misaligned concept report:
Comments
Yongsheng Gao
I apologize. I had generalized the prior "Prosthethic arthroplasty of joint" template I created to include all subtypes of 442095009 |Repair of joint (procedure)|, but neglected to fix that in the Applies to: section.
Hi Jim Case I created two templates. The template with two role groups is simple and reports fewer misalignments. However, it lacks sensitivity to identify potential issues. The template with three role groups reports more misalignments. The role group for implantation and insertion enforces the use of indirect procedure sites and direct devices. Please see the reports for both templates.
The same issue remains for revision and resurfacing concepts. I have forced "revision status" in the repair role group because the revision of a repair procedure is still a repair procedure. We do not need to have additional "surgical action" for the revision role group. The rest role groups represent the specific actions to achieve repair and they do not need revision status. The issues for revision are also identified in your template.
The model pattern report for the repair of joint can be found at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1mjt26XzIjDVdyQkyca5gHLlIuSnEnkMb?usp=drive_link
In the role group changes tab, there are 13 concepts with additional role groups (that includes 10 from the Prosthetic arthroplasty).
In the prod_pattern_detail tab, it shows that 24 concepts are not modelled by proximal primitive parents.
Thanks Yongsheng Gao
I am working on revision repairs currently and had not thought about simply adding the revision attribute to the repair RG. I notice in your templates, however, that you do not have an optional guidance RG, which is present in a number of concepts. Did you leave that out intentionally? You also left out the USING ENERGY relationship in the Action RG. Is that because there are so few of them that require this?
I will take a look at the model pattern report for additional insight.
Hi Jim Case The optional guidance is covered by the "action" role group. There are only two concepts modelled by "using energy" that can be treated as exceptions.
Hi
Jim Case I have tested different options for the template. The model pattern report shows that the majority of concepts are a combination of the repair and surgical implantation groups. The additional grafting or surgical transplantation role group only covers a handful of concepts. I think they can be treated as exceptions. The simple template could be easier for authors to follow.
The model pattern report Prosthetic_Arthroplasty_Model_pattern_report_20240404daily can be found at:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/11VBykOx5an4sG8RLUov9NicBrnNtVctf?usp=drive_link
In the role group changes tab, 10 concepts have inferred additional role groups. 8 concepts are revision procedures. We have 125 revisions of prosthesis and the majority of them are modelled by surgical action, but only 10 procedures are not. For prosthetic arthroplasty, 7 concepts are modelled by surgical action, but 3 concepts are not.
Should resurfacing procedures, << 698531009 |Resurfacing hemiarthroplasty of head of humerus (procedure)|, be modelled by two role groups? The resurfacing group is the repair group without a device. The other is the implantation device role group.
In the subonto_pattern_datail tab, I have highlighted potential issues of additional attributes in the repair group. They could be moved to the implantation role group.
In the prod_pattern_detail tab, it shows that only 14 concepts are not using proximal primitive concepts.