Tangential Bicortical Locked Fixation Improves Stability in Vancouver B1 Periprosthetic Femur Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The biomechanical difficulty in fixation of a Vancouver B1 periprosthetic fracture is purchase of the proximal femoral segment in the presence of the hip stem. Several newer technologies provide the ability to place bicortical locking screws tangential to the hip stem with much longer lengths of screw purchase compared with unicortical screws. This biomechanical study compares the stability of 2 of these newer constructs to previous methods. METHODS: Thirty composite synthetic femurs were prepared with cemented hip stems. The distal femur segment was osteotomized, and plates were fixed proximally with either (1) cerclage cables, (2) locked unicortical screws, (3) a composite of locked screws and cables, or tangentially directed bicortical locking screws using either (4) a stainless steel locking compression plate system with a Locking Attachment Plate (Synthes) or (5) a titanium alloy Non-Contact Bridging system (Zimmer). Specimens were tested to failure in either axial or torsional quasistatic loading modes (n = 3) after 20 moderate load preconditioning cycles. Stiffness, maximum force, and failure mechanism were determined. RESULTS: Bicortical constructs resisted higher (by an average of at least 27%) maximum forces than the other 3 constructs in torsional loading (P < 0.05). Cables constructs exhibited lower maximum force than all other constructs, in both axial and torsional loading. The bicortical titanium construct was stiffer than the bicortical stainless steel construct in axial loading. CONCLUSIONS: Proximal fixation stability is likely improved with the use of bicortical locking screws as compared with traditional unicortical screws and cable techniques. In this study with a limited sample size, we found the addition of cerclage cables to unicortical screws may not offer much improvement in biomechanical stability of unstable B1 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".