Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: Treatments and Outcomes. An Analysis of 47 Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the treatment and outcome of 47 cases of periprosthetic femoral fracture presenting to our unit over a nine-year period. The average follow-up period was 48 months (range 24-114). Surgical treatment involved stem revision in 29 hips, open reduction and internal fixation in 11 hips and conservative treatment in seven hips. The mean HHS at the most recent follow-up was 74 (range 49-91). Twenty-five patients were pain-free (53%), 10 patients had occasional mild pain (21%), eight patients had a limp and pain (17%) and four patients had severe disability (9%). Postoperative radiographs showed complete fracture union in all 47 patients. There were 11 complications: three further periprosthetic fractures, two aseptic loosenings, two dislocations, two aseptic loosenings of the primary prostheses, one stem breakeage, and one intraoperative fracture. Our results suggest cementless revision with tapered fluted stems used without cortical strut grafts are a valid procedure for the treatment of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".