Application of a Fork Plate for Greater Trochanter Osteosynthesis in Total Hip Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
was to assess the effectiveness of using an original technique of greater trochanter fragment fixation during total hip replacement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Since 2013, this construction has been implanted in 175 patients in the clinic of the Russian Scientific Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics named after R.R. Vreden. By the present time, 50 patients have been examined in order to assess the effectiveness of this construction. They were divided into three groups depending on the cause of greater trochanter fixation by the original plate: osteotomy according to T. Paavilainen, periprosthetic Vancouver type AG fractures, false joints of the greater trochanter. The degree of consolidation of the greater trochanter fragment with the femoral bone metadiaphysis was assessed using the roentgenometric technique according to M. Hamadouche's recommendations. The functional result of the hip was evaluated according to the Oxford Hip Score scale. RESULTS: The nonunion rate in the presented groups was 8.3% in fragment fixation after osteotomy according to T. Paavilainen, 25% after fragment fixation in periprosthetic Vancouver type AG fracture, and 11.1% in fixation of the greater trochanter fragment when treating a false joint of the given localization. CONCLUSION: Preliminary results of the greater trochanter fixation using the original fork plate during total hip replacement showed sufficient effectiveness not only in osteotomies of the greater trochanter, periprosthetic iatrogenic and pathological Vancouver type AG fractures but also in case of false joints of this localization developed due to the failure of the previous fixation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".