Impaction femoral allografting and cemented revision for periprosthetic femoral fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We reviewed retrospectively the outcome of the treatment by impaction grafting of periprosthetic femoral fractures around loose stems in 106 patients with Vancouver type-B2 and type-B3 fractures. Eighty-nine patients had a cemented revision with impaction grafting and a long or short stem. The remaining 17 had cemented revision without impaction grafting. Fractures treated by impaction grafting and a long stem were more than five times likely to unite than those treated by impaction grafting and a short stem (odds ratio = 5.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.54 to 19.6; p = 0.009). Furthermore, those with impaction grafting and a long stem were significantly more likely to unite than those with a long stem without impaction grafting (odds ratio = 4.07, 95% CI 1.10 to 15.0; p = 0.035). There was also a trend towards a higher rate of union in those treated by impaction grafting than in those without (odds ratio = 2.69, 95% CI 0.86 to 8.45; p = 0.090). Impaction grafting is being increasingly widely used for the restoration of femoral bone stock. It can be successfully applied to periprosthetic femoral fractures but a long stem should be used to bypass the distal fracture line.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".