Distal Femoral Replacement for Acute Distal Femoral Fractures in Elderly Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate outcomes and complications using cemented modular distal femoral replacement in elderly patients with distal femoral fractures. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review, case series. SETTING: A Level 1 and Level 2 trauma center, both tertiary referral hospitals. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen patients older than 60 years (average age 77 years) who had cemented distal femoral replacement for distal femoral fractures (comminuted, intraarticular, osteoporotic, arthritic) between 2005 and 2013. Patients with previous knee surgery were excluded. INTERVENTION: Cemented modular distal femoral replacement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Implant status, complications, Knee Society Score, Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index. RESULTS: All patients were extremely or very satisfied with their outcomes. For patients with functional outcome data, Knee Society Score averaged 85.7 with a functional score of 35, Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score averaged 19.2, and Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index score averaged 23.1 at an average follow-up of 2.3 years. Range of motion was 1-99 degrees. Implant-related complications occurred in 2 patients (11%); one required revision to total femoral replacement because of periprosthetic fracture and the other had a deep infection that required exchange of the components. No patient had aseptic loosening or patellar maltracking. There were no perioperative deaths or late amputations. CONCLUSIONS: Cemented modular distal femoral replacement is a viable treatment option in elderly patients that permits immediate full weight-bearing, with most patients returning to preoperative functional status. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".