Prevention and treatment of periprosthetic fractures during hip arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To analyze the prevention and treatment of periprosthetic fractures during Hip arthroplasty.Methods To retrospectively analyze all hip replacement surgery patients from January 2006 to December 2009,including 195 cases of primary arthroplasty,revision surgery in 43 cases.Intraoperative periprosthetic fractures in 30 cases,In accordance with the Vancouver classification,A-type fracture in 12 cases,B-type fracture in 3 cases,C-type fracture in 15 cases.according to their type of fracture,the option of treatments included cerclage,memory alloy embracing fixator and bone graft treatment of allograft cortical bone,anatomical plate fixation.Results All 30 cases were followed up for 12~25 months and all fractures healed,Harris score(90±3) minutes.Conclusion Osteoporosis,improper operation surgery,prosthesis type chosen does not match and the surrounding soft tissue release surgery is not complete,are main reasons for fracture.The key of the treatments applied forperiprosthetic fractures is to select the appropriate therapy according to type of surgery in Vancouver and prevent Osteoporosis,surgical techniques and other risk factors.
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 | 0.000 | 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".