Classification and treatment of periprosthetic femoral fracture after hip arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To discuss the classification systems and treatment protocols for periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) after hip arthroplasty.Methods The study enrolled 22 cases (22 hips) of PFF after hip arthroplasty treated from November 2006 to October 2013.There were 13 males and 9 females with mean age of 76.8 years (range,51-91 ycars).According to thc modified Vancouver classification,one case was grouped to type TG,1 type A1,6 type B1,10 type B2,1 type B3,and 3 type C.Two cases underwent conservative treatment,but the remaining 20 cases were treated surgically among which 9 had internal fixation and 11 had long-stem revision.At the final follow-up evaluation,Harris hip score was used for clinical results and Beals and Tower' s criteria for radiological results.Complications were also recorded.Results Two cases died at postoperative 3 months and 5 months respectively.Twenty cases were followed up for mean 3 years (range,1-6 years).Mean Harris hip score was 85.4 points (range,50-100 points).Bone healed in average 4.8 months (range,3-8 months).According to the Beals and Tower' s criteria,the results were excellent in 16 cases,good in 1 and poor in 3.Postoperative complications were observed in 3 cases,including superficial infection in one case of type B1,distal femoral fracture in 1 case of type C and type B1 fracture in 1 case of type B2.There were no signs of malunion,implant failure,dislocation and loosening of the prosthesis.Conclusions The modified Vancouver classification may be helpful for treatment decision.Treatment choices based on fracture classification attain good clinical outcome. Key words: Arthroplasty, replacement, hip; Periprosthetic fractures; Revision
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".