Periprosthetic fractures around the femoral stem: overcoming challenges and avoiding pitfalls.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Management of periprosthetic fractures around the femoral stem after total hip arthroplasty (THA) represents a significant challenge and optimal treatment remains controversial. The most common treatment paradigm involves treating fractures around a well-fixed stem with osteosynthesis, whereas fractures around a loose stem require revision arthroplasty and those with poor bone require augmentation with bone graft. Paradoxically, the literature reports a higher rate of failure for osteosynthesis around prostheses considered to be well-fixed. Such a high rate of poor outcomes may result not only from difficult fracture fixation and compromised biologic healing, but also from unrecognized peri-implant pathology. Therefore, proper preoperative and intraoperative evaluation is key, and a subset of patients may benefit from alternative management. We review the appropriate methods for evaluation and treatment of Vancouver type B fractures with particular emphasis on avoiding missteps that can lead to failure.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".