Combined use of extensively porous coated femoral components with onlay cortical strut allografts in revision of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty are getting more prevalent. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical results of combined use of uncemented extensively porous coated femoral components with onlay cortical strut allografts in revision of Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. METHODS: Thirteen hips after total hip arthroplasty in 13 patients who suffered a Vancouver B2 or B3 periprosthetic fracture were treated with an uncemented extensively porous coated femoral component combined with onlay cortical strut allografts. Each patient was assigned a Harris hip score, and a visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain and satisfaction. Radiographs were examined for component stability, fracture site and allograft-host union and allograft reconstruction. RESULTS: At an average of 5.3-year follow-up, no patient required repeat revision. The average Harris hip score was (71.8 +/- 6.3) points, the pain VAS score was (16.6 +/- 4.3) points, and the patient satisfaction VAS score was (81.5 +/- 5.7) points. Radiographic examination showed no detectable loosening of the prostheses, and 12 cases were presented fixation by osseointegration and the other one was stable fibrous ingrown fixation. All fractures united for (5.2 +/- 1.4) months in average. And all onlay strut allografts united to host bone for about (11.5 +/- 2.6) months. CONCLUSIONS: Combined use of uncemented, long stemmed, extensively porous coated implant with cortical onlay strut allografts can achieve good clinic results and high rate of union for both fracture site and allograft-host bone junction. This technique could be used routinely to augment fixation and healing of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".