Treatment of Vancouver type-B periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To study treatment of Vancouver type-B periprosthetie femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty.Methods There were 10 cases with Vancouver type-B periprosthetic femo- ral fractures after total hip arthroplasty being treatment,including three cases with type-B1 undergone open reduction and allografi strut to fix the fracture,two with type-B2 undergone open reduction and revi- sion with a long stem and five with type-B3 undergone open reduction,revision with a long stem and al- lograft strut to restore bone.The mean duration of follow-up was 27 months(8-36 months).The Harris Hip Score and radiographs were used to evaluate the outcome.Failure of the procedure.was defined as the need for revision surgery because nonunion of fracture,implant loosening,and infection.Results All cases obtained successful fracture healing,with no stem loosening or infection.Of all,nine cases were a- ble to walk by themselves but one needed aid in walking.The Harris Hip Score was 83 at the time of the final follow-up.Osseous union of the allograft to the host femur occurred in eight hips and mild graft re- sorption in two.The cotex thickness of host femur was increased more than 3-5 mm.Conclusions Stem stability and bone quality are important factors determining the outcome of treatment for periprosthet- ic femoral fracture after hip arthroplasty.Good outcome can be achieved by adopting different treatments according to sub-classification of Vancouver type-B fractures.The allograft strut for the treatment of a Vancouver type-B periprosthetic femoral fracture can not only provide fixation,but also make fracture heal fast and augment bone mass and strength.
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 | 0.001 | 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".