Management of traumatic periprosthetic femoral fractures following hip replaceme nt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the management alternatives to tr aumatic periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip replacement. Metho ds A retrospective analysis was done on five cases of traumatic perip rosthetic femoral fractures posterior to hip replacement admitted in from June 1 998 to June 2003. There were two males and three females, with age range of 52- 71 years (average 59 years). One case suffered from traffic accident and the oth er four from slipping. Three cases had received hip replacement for femoral head aseptic necrosis, the other two for femoral neck non-union. Total hip replacem ent was carried out in four cases (five hips) and femoral head replacement in on e. These traumatic periprosthetic fractures occurred from one month to 17 years after hip replacement. According to classification to periprosthetic fracture of Vancouver (1995), there were 3 cases of type B and 2 type C. Two cases (one cas e of type B and one type C) were treated with traction and conservative treatmen ts, two (type B) with long shaft prosthesis revision combined with shape memory saw tooth embracing fixator or wires and one (type C) with anatomical plate inte rnal fixation. Results All 5 cases were followed up for f rom two months to five years and attained fracture union with no complications s uch as infection, nonunion or fixation breakage. Conclusions Traumatic periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip replacement are hard to deal with. The management alternatives differ according to fracture site, prost hesis loosening, bone quality and general status of patients. Classification cri teria and corresponding managements of periprosthetic fractures of Vancouver are proved to be suitable guidelines.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".