MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973015775 · doi:10.1097/bot.0b013e3181d73508

Interprosthetic Femoral Fractures

2010· article· de· W1973015775 on OpenAlex
Christiaan N. Mamczak, Michael J. Gardner, Brett R. Bolhofner, Joseph Borrelli, Philipp N. Streubel, William M. Ricci

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Trauma · 2010
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMalunionNonunionSurgeryFemurReduction (mathematics)Orthopedic surgeryFemoral fractureRetrospective cohort studyFixation (population genetics)CohortPopulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Interprosthetic femoral fractures, ones occurring between ipsilateral total hip and total knee arthroplasties, are an increasingly common and challenging problem for orthopaedic surgeons. The purpose of this study was to report specific fracture locations and treatment outcomes associated with a protocol of femoral plate fixation that spanned the interprosthetic zone applied with modern soft tissue preserving reduction techniques without adjuvant bone grafts. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: One Level I and one Level II trauma center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: A consecutive cohort of 25 patients with 26 interprosthetic femur fractures surgically treated by one of four orthopaedic traumatologists were retrospectively reviewed. There were nine fractures of the femoral shaft (Orthopaedic Trauma Association [OTA] 32) about hip arthroplasty prostheses and 17 supracondylar fractures (OTA 33) about total knee prostheses. Five patients with six fractures were excluded as a result of lack of follow up (n = 4) or deviation from the treatment protocol (n = 2). The remaining 20 fractures were all low-energy closed injuries in elderly patients (average age 80 years; range, 56-98 years; 14 females and six males). INTERVENTION: A common surgical treatment protocol included plate fixation that spanned the entire interprosthetic zone (overlapping the stem proximally and knee component distally) and the use of biologic tissue-preserving plating techniques without use of supplemental bone grafts of any kind. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Fracture healing, time to full weightbearing, malunion, nonunion, and the presence of any hardware failure. RESULTS: Supracondylar interprosthetic fracture patterns (OTA 33A) were two times more common than proximal diaphyseal fractures (OTA 32) (Vancouver B), 65% versus 35%. All 20 fractures healed after the index procedure. The average time to weightbearing as tolerated was 13 weeks (range, 6-22 weeks). There were three malunions (one 10° valgus, one 9° extension, and one 10° flexion), two cases of painful implants (one required removal), and one loose long-stem revision hip prosthesis (required total femur replacement). All other implants remained well-fixed. All complications occurred in patients with supracondylar fracture patterns. There were no additional associated peri-implant fractures. CONCLUSIONS: Interprosthetic femoral fractures tend to occur more frequently in the supracondylar region about total knee arthroplasty components than in the diaphysis about hip stems. Modern biologic plating techniques that span the entire interprosthetic zone to eliminate additional stress risers show reliable union rates without the use of adjuvant bone graft while maintaining limb alignment and implant survivorship.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it