Outcome after treatment of Vancouver B2 peri-prosthetic femoral fractures: revision arthroplasty and compression cerclage system fixation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Peri-prosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty (THA) are increasing year by year. The aim of this study was to evaluate the treatment effect of Vancouver B2 peri-prosthetic femoral fractures using uncemented revision with compression cerclage system (CCS). Methods: Fourteen patients with a diagnosis of Vancouver type B2 fracture were enrolled between 2002 and 2013. All patients were managed by revision arthroplasty, using cementless femoral long stems with CCS were used to aid the reconstruction where indicated. Results: All the fractures had both clinical and radiological union. The outcome was optimal, subjectively as satisfactory by all patients and this is substantiated objectively, by a post operative mean Harris hip score of 83.0. For Vancouver B2 peri-prosthetic femoral fracture, long stemmed revision was suggested with good clinical outcome. The use of non-cemented implants at revision surgery seemed a natural progression. And CCS is a promising strategy with several advantages. Conclusions: Uncemented revision with CCS system appears to be an attractive option for peri-prosthetic fractures (PPF) with unstable femoral stems.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".