The treatment of periprosthetic femur fracture after hip arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the treatment methods of periprosthetic femur fracture after hip arthroplasty.Methods 9 patiens with periprosthetic femur fracture after hip arthroplasty were selected.According to Vancouver classification,there were 1 case in A type,5 cases in B1 type,2 cases in B2 type,1 case in C type.One case were treated by nonoperative method and the other 8 cases were treated by operative method,including 5 cases treated by memory alloy embracing fixator and internal fixation,3 cases treated by long stem prosthetic replacement and iliac bone graft.Results 8 cases were followed up for 8 to 21 months,average 14.2 months.All fractures were united well with good alignment and internal fixation failure except one prosthesis loosing was observed.Conclusion For periprosthetic femur fracture after hip arthroplasty,Vancouver classification methods include the location and stability of the fracture,prosthesis loosening,and the femur in bone mass is importance to the clinical treatment.As to A type fracture,prosthesis is stable,and the conservative treatment can be choosed.As to B1 and B2 type fracture,the aggressive surgical treatment can be choosed based on patients' general condition.If prosthesis loosening after artificial hip arthroplasty,the patients should treated with long stem prosthetic replacement. Key words: Arthroplasty, replacement, hip; Prosthesis; Fractures, bone; Treatment
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".