Do Transcortical Screws in a Locking Plate Construct Improve the Stiffness in the Fixation of Vancouver B1 Periprosthetic Femur Fractures? A Biomechanical Analysis of 2 Different Plating Constructs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This biomechanical study compared Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femur fractures fixed with either a locking plate and anterior allograft strut construct or an equivalent locking plate with locking attachment plates construct in paired cadaveric specimens. METHODS: After 9 pairs of cadaveric femora were implanted with a cemented primary total hip arthroplasty, an oblique osteotomy was created distal to the cement mantle. Femora underwent fixation with either: (1) a locking plate with anterior strut allograft (locking compression plating (LCP)-Allograft) or (2) a locking plate with 2 locking attachment plates (LAPs) (LCP-LAP). Construct stiffness was compared in nondestructive mechanical testing for 2 modes of compression (20 degrees abduction and 20 degrees flexion), 2 four-point bending directions (anterior-posterior and medial-lateral), and torsion. A final load to failure test evaluated the axial compression required to achieve fracture gap closure or construct yield. Fixation was compared through paired t tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The LCP-Allograft construct demonstrated higher stiffness values in compressive abduction (207 ± 57 vs.151 ± 40 N/mm), torsion (1666 ± 445 vs. 1125 ± 160 N mm/degree) and medial-lateral four-point bending (413 ± 135 vs. 167 ± 68 N/mm) compared with the LCP-LAP construct (P < 0.05). No differences were identified between the 2 constructs in compressive flexion, anterior-posterior bending, or the load to failure test (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Use of the anterior allograft strut created a stiffer construct compared with the LCP-LAP for the treatment of a Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femur fracture only in loading modes with increased medial-lateral bending. Although these static load results are indicative of the early postoperative environment, further fatigue testing is required to better understand the importance of the reduced medial-lateral stiffness over a longer period.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".