Outcomes of post-operative periprosthetic femur fracture around total hip arthroplasty: a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the number of primary total hip arthroplasties increase over the next several decades so will the incidence of periprosthetic fractures around the femoral stem. Treatment can reliably be predicted using the Vancouver classification with internal fixation being indicated in fractures involving a stable implant and revision arthroplasty indicated in those with unstable prostheses. Non-displaced fractures involving the greater and lesser trochanter can generally be treated non-operatively. Extensively porous-coated stems and the use of modular uncemented revision stems to treat Vancouver B fractures have shown encouraging results. The treatment of Vancouver C periprosthetic fractures continues to follow basic AO fixation principles with an emphasis on eliminating stress risers with adequate implant overlap and length. This review will focus on the risk factors and classification of these fractures, as well as highlight the treatment options for post-operative periprosthetic femoral fractures around a total hip arthroplasty.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.009 | 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".