Dynamic compression plates for Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on the best surgical treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures. We report our experience with a dynamic compression plate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the results of 18 periprosthetic femoral fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation using the dynamic compression plate (DCP). There were 7 Vancouver type B1, 2 type B2 and 9 type B3 fractures. 16 cases had previously undergone at least one revision procedure. In addition to a DCP plate, all B2 and B3 fractures were revised to cemented prostheses, and all B3 fractures were revised with impaction grafting. Mean follow-up was 39 months. RESULTS: The mean healing time for those 11 cases that united was 13 months. One B1-type and one B3-type fracture with plate fracture within 8 months of surgery failed to heal. Furthermore, one B1-type fracture and one B2-type fracture failed and developed nonunion. 3 patients died, from causes not related to surgery, within 8 months after surgery without signs of healing. INTERPRETATION: Open reduction and internal fixation using DCPs seems to be a valid method for the treatment of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures with stable stem in place. If the stem is unstable, we suggest that DCPs may be used in association with femoral revision using a long stem. In cases with stable stem (B1), we are inclined to agree with other authors that additional fixation using an extramedullary cortical strut graft may be necessary to improve stability and promote final healing.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".