Periprosthetic femoral fractures--evaluation of risk factors.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Endoprosthetic hip arthroplasty is a surgical intervention that significantly improves the quality of the patient's life, with excellent long term results, but with an increased risk of major complications. One such complication is the periprosthetic femoral fracture, which may occur in both young and old patients due to several risk factors typical to the elderly (osteoporosis, fall risk), cementless press-fit implants, implant loosening, and revision arthroplasty. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study tries to evaluate the risk factors for periprosthetic femoral fractures treated at the Orthopedics and Trauma Department of the Iaşi Rehabilitation Hospital. Retrospective evaluations were conducted on 3454 patients with primary hip arthroplasty and 167 patients with revision hip arthroplasty, the surgical procedures being performed between January 1994 and March 2012. The study was conducted on 47 patients (17 males and 30 females, mean age 68 years) with periprosthetic fracture. RESULTS: The incidence of periprosthetic femoral fractures in primary arthroplasty group was 0.89% (0.63% intraoperative and 0.26% postoperative), with a considerably higher incidence for cementless implants (81.39%), and 9.58% in revision arthroplasty group (8.38% intraoperative and 1.19% postoperative). Vancouver type B was the most frequent, both in operative and postoperative revision arthroplasty and in postoperative primary arthroplasty. 88% of the fractures were surgically treated, with a satisfactory postoperative course both in early and long-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Periprosthetic femoral fractures result in increased morbidity and mortality rate, are difficult to treat, and require complex therapeutic strategies depending on risk factors, fracture type, bone stock, and implant stability.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".