Case Report and Literature Review of Periprosthetic Atypical Femoral Fractures After Total Hip Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe a case of periprosthetic femoral fracture with 5 major features of an atypical femoral fracture (AFF) and localized cortical thickening at the fracture site, which is characteristic of an AFF. An 81-year-old female patient had undergone cementless total hip arthroplasty for a right femoral neck fracture at the age of 66, and had been taking oral alendronate since then. At the age of 79, she developed spontaneous right thigh pain. Radiographs showed lateral cortical thickening and pedestal formation around the end of the femoral component. She was advised to discontinue oral alendronate and change to eldecalcitol. At the age of 81, she developed sudden severe pain when standing up from a seated position and was not able to walk. Radiographs showed a periprosthetic femoral fracture with 5 major features of AFF at the site of localized cortical thickening. We diagnosed a Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic femoral fracture. She underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with an NCB® Periprosthetic Femur Plate System with cable grips. Daily subcutaneous injection of teriparatide and low intensity pulsed ultrasound therapy were performed to stimulate bone healing. She was able to walk without assistance at 4 months after ORIF. Radiographs showed adequate bridging callus and a disappearing fracture line. This case was diagnosed as a periprosthetic atypical femoral fracture (PAFF), because a periprosthetic fracture is excluded from the definition of AFF. Similar to AFF, PAFF exhibits poor clinical outcomes. The approach to treating PAFF should be decided after considering the pathogenesis.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".