Is internal fixation alone advantageous in selected <scp>B</scp>2 periprosthetic fractures?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Revision surgery is currently the recommended treatment for Vancouver B2 femoral periprosthetic fractures, but isolated open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) might be an effective treatment for these fractures around cemented collarless polished tapered (CCPT) stems, as these stems can re-engage in the cement mantle, regaining stability following internal fixation. The aim of this study was to determine the operative risks, post-operative complications, and radiographic and functional outcomes in two cohorts of Vancouver B2 femoral fractures around CCPT stems treated either by ORIF alone or revision surgery. METHODS: The results of 12 patients with B2 periprosthetic fractures around a CCPT stems treated by ORIF alone (median follow-up 67 months) were compared with those of nine patients with a similar fracture treated by revision surgery (median follow-up 59 months). RESULTS: All fractures treated by ORIF alone healed and all stems restabilized and remained stable within their original cement mantle. These patients had significantly shorter overall operating room times (P = 0.002), surgical times (P = 0.002) and required fewer units of blood transfusion (P = 0.008) than patients in the revision cohort. In the ORIF cohort, one patient had two dislocations. In the revision cohort, one patient had delayed wound healing, a second patient had delayed wound healing and two dislocations, and a third patient had two dislocations. CONCLUSION: Although further studies with larger numbers are required, treatment of these fractures with ORIF alone may be a viable alternative to revision surgery as it reduces the operative risks involved.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".