[Review of femoral component with proximal metaphyseal reconstruction using allograft cortical struts in a multioperated patient. Case report].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Periprosthetic hip fractures are those that occur at the femoral and acetabular level. These fractures are associated with a wide variety of problems such as comminution, loose of bone stock and loosening of the femoral stem. Treatment of these fractures has historically been associated with high rates of treatment failures, complications and unsatisfactory outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To present the clinical-radiographic case of the treatment of a periprosthetic hip fracture, with a femoral revision and metaphyseal reconstruction with cortical strut allograft and cerclage cables, in a multioperated patient. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We present the case of a patient with a dislocation of a revision total hip prosthesis with a periprosthetic fracture type B3 of the Vancouver classification, who underwent a revision of the femoral component and a proximal metaphyseal reconstruction of the femur with cortical strut allograft and cerclage cables. RESULTS: The patient had an adequate evolution at the postoperative year, walking with a cane, radiographic control with adequate congruence of the prosthetic components and data of consolidation of the fracture. DISCUSSION: In the treatment of periprosthetic fractures, reconstruction can be done with use of cortical strut allograft and cerclage cables, with good functional and radiological results.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".