Comparison of fixation techniques in Vancouver type AG periprosthetic femoral fracture: a biomechanical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to biomechanically compare cable, trochanteric grip plate, and locking plate techniques in Vancouver type AG fracture model in an in vitro test environment. METHODS: Fifteen pieces of fourth-generation synthetic femora were separated into 3 groups of 5 models each. A greater trochanteric fracture model was created after femoral stem implantation. Group 1 was fixated with only cable, Group 2 with trochanteric grip plate, and Group 3 with locking plate. Horizontal stiffness, axial stiffness, and failure loads were compared between the groups. RESULTS: In horizontal compression tests, Group 3 had the highest values, but the only statistically significant difference was between the locking plate group and cable group. Axial distraction test results showed that mean stiffness of Group 1 was 94.6±9.44 N/mm, that of Group 2 was 174.8±28.64 N/mm, and that of Group 3 was 185.6±71.64 N/mm. While locking plate versus cable fixation and grip plate fixation versus cable fixation showed statistically significant differences (p<0.05), comparison of locking plate versus grip plate fixation showed no statistically significant difference (p>0.05). In axial failure load test, Group 3 had the highest results. The only significant difference was between the locking plate and cable groups (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: In Vancouver type AG fractures stable fixation may be achieved with grip plate fixation and locking plates, with the former ensuring more stable osteosynthesis.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".