Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures after Hip Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To determine results of treatment according to the guidelines of the Vancouver classification in periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty. Materials and Methods: Among 44 cases of periproshtetic femoral fractures after hip arthroplasty treated between Aug. 1991 and Feb. 2008, thirty-two cases with minimum follow-up greater than one year were included. Outcomes were evaluated using the Beals and Tower's critieria. Results: Outcomes were excellent in 27 cases, and poor in 5 cases. Four of 5 cases with poor result were due to non-union. Three cases were treated with internal fixation and 1 case was treated with a conservative method. One case with a poor result was due to loosening of the cemented stem of a Vancouver type B1 fracture. Loosening of the stem after mid to long term follow up occurred in an additional 4 cases (3 cases with a cemented stem in a type B1 fracture, 1 case with a cemented stem of a type C fracture). Loosened stems were revised with a long revision stem. Conclusion: For type B1 periprosthetic fractures around a cementless stem, and for type B2, type B3 periprosthetic fractures, treatment according to the guidelines of the Vancouver classification showed excellent results. However, type B1 periprosthetic fractures around a cemented stem showed poor results with non-union or stem loosening. Hence, more rigid fixation using a bone graft or revision of the stem is needed. In type C periprosthetic fractures in osteoporotic patients, closer attentions is needed to avoid complications.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".