Biomechanical Evaluation of Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture Fixation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A variety of methods are available for the fixation of femoral shaft fractures after total hip arthroplasty. However, few studies in the literature have quantified the performance of such repair constructs. The aim of this study was to evaluate biomechanically four different constructs for the fixation of periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures following total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: Twenty synthetic femora were tested in axial compression, lateral bending, and torsion to determine initial stiffness, as well as stiffness following fixation of a simulated femoral midshaft fracture with and without a bone gap. Four fracture fixation constructs (five specimens per group) were assessed: construct A was a Synthes locked plate (a twelve-hole broad dynamic compression plate) with locked screws; construct B, a Synthes locked plate (a twelve-hole broad dynamic compression plate) with cables and locked screws; construct C, a Zimmer nonlocking (eight-hole) cable plate with cables and nonlocked screws; and construct D, a Zimmer nonlocking (eight-hole) cable plate with allograft strut, cables, and nonlocked screws. Axial stiffness, lateral bending stiffness, and torsional stiffness were assessed with respect to baseline intact specimen values. Axial load to failure was also measured for the specimens. RESULTS: Construct D demonstrated either equivalent or superior stiffness in all testing modes compared with the other constructs in femora with both a midshaft fracture and a bone gap. A comparison of constructs A, B, and C demonstrated equivalent stiffness in all test modes (with one exception) in femora with a midshaft fracture and a bone gap. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of a nonlocking plate with an allograft strut (construct D) resulted in the highest stiffness of the constructs examined for treating a periprosthetic fracture around a stable femoral component of a total hip replacement.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".