MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095164399 · doi:10.1055/s-2007-965657

Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures with the Bicontact Revision Stem

2007· article· de· W2095164399 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C. Eingartner, U. Ochs, D. Egetemeyer, R. Volkmann

Bibliographic record

VenueZeitschrift für Orthopädie und ihre Grenzgebiete · 2007
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriprostheticIntramedullary rodMedicineSurgeryProsthesisReduction (mathematics)Bone graftingFixation (population genetics)Internal fixationArthroplasty

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZeitschrift für Orthopädie und ihre GrenzgebieteSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207