Anatomic relationship between temporomandibular joint and middle ear.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incidence of periprosthetic fractures after primary knee and hip arthroplasty is around 2.5% and is increasing after revision surgery up to 4%. Management of these fractures is often particularly demanding and expensive. The primary aim of the presented study is to describe our experience in using a precontoured periarticular polyaxial standard plating system in a cohort of patients with homogeneous fracture type (Vancouver B1, C), comparing our experience with other surgical solutions. In stable implants, the primary strategies aim for fracture stabilization, leaving the original prosthesis in place. The results of conventional non-locking implants have been mostly poor with complication rates up to 53%. Therefore, today, monoaxial locking plates are strongly recommended. From May 2013 to December 2014, 30 "non-contact bridging plate" (NCB-PP®) were implanted. All fractures were periprosthetic Vancouver B1 or C fractures. In 24 patients, NCB-PP® plating was performed after periprosthetic femoral fracture as primary treatment, in 6 patients, it was performed as secondary fracture treatment after primary plating failure. All surgeons performed lateral femoral approach with ORIF. Average follow up was 36 months. Bony consolidation was confirmed in all patients, bar one, in an average time of 4 months; none of the patients bar one developed mechanical failure or implant breakage. The GOS at 52 weeks was back to the preoperative level in 18 patients and it did not improve at 24 months. The Harris Hip Score at 52 weeks showed a mean score of 80.14 points. Full weight bearing was allowed at mean time of 100 days. None of the patients developed complications that needed subsequent surgery. The use of NCBPP plates has given excellent results in our clinical practice, allowing early postoperative mobilization and recovery.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.005 |
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".