Surgical treatment of Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims We investigated patient characteristics and outcomes of Vancouver type B periprosthetic fractures treated with femoral component revision and/or osteosynthesis. Patients and Methods The study utilized data from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR) and information from patient records. We included all primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed in Sweden since 1979, and undergoing further surgery due to Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fracture between 2001 and 2011. The primary outcome measure was any further reoperation between 2001 and 2013. Cross-referencing with the National Patient Register was performed in two stages, in order to identify all surgical procedures not recorded on the SHAR. Results Out of 1381 Vancouver type B fractures that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 257 underwent further reoperation by the end of 2013. Interprosthetic and Type B1 fractures had a higher risk for reoperation. For B1 fractures, the rate of reoperation did not differ (p = 0.322) after use of conventional (26%) or locking plate osteosynthesis (19%). No significant differences were observed between cemented, cementless monoblock, and cementless modular revision components for the treatment of type B2 and B3 fractures. Conclusion In this country-specific study, the choice of locking or conventional plates for the treatment of type B1, and cemented or cementless femoral components fixation for B2 and B3 fractures, had no significant influence on risk for reoperation. Interprosthetic fractures adversely affected the outcome of treatment of type B fractures. Differences in the patient characteristics of the compared groups were observed. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1447–1458.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".