Evaluation of treatment outcomes of periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip replacement surgery.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this paper is to evaluate treatment outcomes of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) after total hip arthroplasty (THA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study group consisted of 119 patients (125 procedures) with PFFs, including 101 patients (105 procedures) with intraoperative fractures and 20 with postoperative fractures. Intraoperative PFFs occurred in 84 primary arthroplasties and in 21 revision arthroplasties. The control group comprised 390 patients (408 procedures) without PFFs. The Harris Hip Score (HHS) questionnaire was used to evaluate the influence of the fracture and its type according to the Vancouver classification and the treatment method on the patients' clinical status. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found between HHS scores of patients with intraoperative PFFs and patients without fractures or between the group of patients after revision THA performed due to a late PFF and patients reoperated on for other reasons. Trendelenburg's sign was positive more frequently in patients with an intraoperative PFF after revision THA than in those after primary THA (p=0.006). The small size of the subgroups studied did not make possible a reliable analysis of PFF treatment outcomes for given types of fractures according to the Vancouver classification and their respective treatment methods. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Treatment outcomes of intraoperative PFFs are satisfactory despite the use of simple fixation methods, as opposed to poor treatment outcomes of postoperative fractures, whose stabilization required the use of complicated surgical methods. 2. The results did not allow for determining the influence of the type of fracture according to the Vancouver classification and the treatment method on the clinical condition of patients after PFF treatment.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".