Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures with the Bicontact Revision Stem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Periprosthetic fractures in cases without prior loosening of the stem can be treated with open reduction and internal fixation, but cases with preexisting loosening and/or bone defects present specific challenges to the surgeon. The keys to the success of intramedullary stabilization of femoral fractures--reconstruction of length, axis and rotation rather than meticulous reduction of the fragments and minimal impact on fragment vascularization by the surgical approach--can be transferred to the treatment of periprosthetic fractures. METHOD: The Bicontact revision stem can be regarded as a combination of an interlocking nail in its distal part and a proximally coated femoral stem in its proximal part. The transfemoral approach respects the vascularization of the bone, although it is not minimally invasive. Forty-one patients with a mean age of 72.3 years and a periprosthetic fracture were included in this study. According to the Vancouver classification there were 2 type A fractures of the trochanteric region, 14 were B1, 8 were B2 with prior loosening, 13 were B3 with significant bone loss, and 2 fractures were distal to the tip of the prosthesis (type C). RESULTS: In all patients, intramedullary stabilization with a Bicontact revision stem was performed. All but three fractures healed (pathologic fracture with multiple myeloma in one case, impaired bone healing in two cases). In 7 patients, further procedures had to be undertaken (new periprosthetic fracture in 2, loosening and revision with a standard prosthesis in 2, revision with a long stem prosthesis together with bone grafting in 3 cases). At follow-up, after a mean of 4.3 years, all patients were able to walk, and the mean Harris Hip Score was 71.1 points. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, combined application of the principles of intramedullary nailing and of uncemented total hip replacement by use of the distally interlocked Bicontact revision stem enables successful treatment of 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".