Intraprosthetic screw fixation increases primary fixation stability in periprosthetic fractures of the femur—A biomechanical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to develop a new fixation technique for the treatment of periprosthetic fractures using intraprosthetic screw fixation. The goal was to biomechanically evaluate the increase in primary fixation stability compared to unicortical locked-screw plating. METHODS: A Vancouver C periprosthetic fracture was simulated in femur prosthesis constructs. Fixation was then performed with either unicortical locked-screw plating using the LISS-plate or with intraprosthetic screw fixation. Fixation stability was compared in an axial load-to-failure model. RESULTS: The intraprosthetic fixation model was superior to the unicortical locked-screw fixation in all tested devices. The intraprosthetic fixation model required 11,807N±1596N for failure and the unicortical locked-screw plating required 7649N±653N (p=0.002). CONCLUSION: Intraprosthetic screw anchorage with a special prosthesis drill enhances the primary stability in treating periprosthetic fractures by internal fixation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".