MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Outcome of Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic fracture in hemiarthroplasty by trochanter hook plate

2019· article· en· W2967873826 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mumtaz Ahmed Ansari, Mohd Mujtaba Hussain Patel, Sachin A. Shah, L. Pingarrón-Martı ́n

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Orthopaedics Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriprostheticMedicineSurgeryGreater trochanterHookRange of motionProsthesisFixation (population genetics)Reduction (mathematics)Harris Hip ScoreFemurArthroplastyDentistryPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Fractures around hip is an increasing burden in elderly causing significant morbidity and mortality. Periprosthetic fractures occurring after hemiarthroplasty of hip is a serious complication. In this study, we have reviewed our experience in the treatment of periprosthetic fractures. Method: In our study 8 patients (6 men and 2 women; mean age: 65 ± 8 years) with periprosthetic fractures treated with ORIF with trochanteric hook plate with proximal unicortical screws in the zone of prosthesis and below by bicortical screws with a minimum follow up of 4months and maximum up to 1year was carried out. The average union period was checked after operation with radiologic findings. Radiologic outcomes were evaluated .All cases were assessed postoperatively for functional outcome in terms of range of motion, pain and walking distance. Results: The average time for union was 16 weeks and we have achieved 90% of union and Good range of motion with no pain. There was no case with loss of fixation or loss of reduction requiring revision surgery. Conclusion: We observed good functional outcome in patient treated with Trochanteric hook plate. Reversed trochanteric hook plate is a reliable, effective option for management of Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femoral 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Orthopaedics SciencesSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207