Strut allografts for failed treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures: Good outcome in 13 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strut allografts are not recommended after a femoral shaft exposure, because they may endanger the femoral blood supply. Up till now, we have seen no clinical reports on this problem. We treated 13 consecutive patients with very large anteromedial and anterolateral femoral strut allografts to restabilize periprosthetic fractures which had become loose after a previous attempt at surgical fixation (Vancouver type B fractures with severe bone loss). In 8 cases, the stem was revised in conjunction with the use of strut allografts and in 5 cases, strut allografts alone were used. All refractures and nonunions healed without further treatment. At a mean follow-up of 3 (1.2-7) years, the mean Harris Hip Score was 78 (65-92). All strut grafts showed ingrowth with augmentation of periprosthetic bone on the radiographs. There were 3 complications, 1 nonprogressive subsidence of a revision stem (fibrous stable), 1 deep hematoma and 1 partial lesion of the sciatic nerve. In this series, strut grafts gave reliable healing with augmentation of the host bone stock despite previous femoral exposure, severe bone loss, adverse type of fracture, and persistent instability at the index operation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".