Periprosthetic Fractures of the Femur after Hip and Knee Replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To present the clinical and radiological results of treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the femur after hip and knee replacements. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients (8 males and 26 females) with 34 fractures of the femur complicating hip and knee replacements are the subjects of this report. In 21 cases, the fracture affected the femur after hip replacement, and in 13 cases after knee replacement. Fractures around the hip replacement were classified according to Vancouver classification, and those around the knee replacement were classified according to Rorabeck. Location of fracture was defined as metaphyseal or diaphyseal. Arbitrary classification of fracture union was used. Fractures were considered to be either united or to have delayed union, after radiology. Conservative treatment and different methods of fixation were used. Clinical correlations between location of fracture and outcome were analyzed. RESULTS: All 21 metaphyseal fractures after hip and knee replacements united. Eight diaphyseal fractures (6 after hip replacement and 2 after knee replacement) united. Five diaphyseal fractures after hip replacement had delayed union, and 4 fractures united after bone graft. In 1 case, fracture did not unite, the treatment was discontinued and the patient was lost to follow-up. CONCLUSION: Our data show that metaphyseal fractures, regardless of type of implant, had better healing potential and did not require additional surgery. Diaphyseal fractures of the femoral shaft around the stem of femoral component of the hip or knee prosthesis required a bone graft and had less favorable outcomes. Women were more frequently affected by periprosthetic femoral 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".