Hip Revision Arthroplasty of Periprosthetic Fractures Vancouver B2and B3 with a Modular Revision Stem: Short-Term Results and Review ofLiterature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic fractures Vancouver type B2/B3 after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a challenging entity with increasing numbers. Limited data are available for this type of fracture treated with modular stems. Therefore, this study evaluated the outcome of Vancouver type B2/B3 fractures treated with a modular hip revision stem using a subproximal/distal anchorage and compared it to the current literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A consecutive series of periprosthetic Vancouver type B2/B3 fractures treated with a modular revision stem was retrospectively (2013 - 2016) evaluated. Assessment included the clinical (HHS, pain, ROM) as well as the radiological outcome (subsidence, loosening, facture healing). In adddition, the surgical technique is described in detail and results are compared with the current literature. RESULTS: A total of 18 patients (female/male 12/6) with Vancouver B2/B3 (n = 12/6) fractures with a mean age of 75.5 (60 - 89) years were included. The revision stem was inserted via a modified transgluteal approach (n = 16) or classical transfemoral approach (n = 2). The mean follow-up was 18.5 months, with a mean Harris Hip Score of 72.5 ± 18.7 (35.0 - 99.0) points. The fracture healing rate was 94.4% (n = 17) with osseous integration according to Engh in all cases. Dislocations of the greater trochanter were recorded in seven patients (38.9%). According to Beals and Towers, all results were rated excellent or good. No implant-related failure or relevant subsidence during this time was observed. Major complications were observed in five patients with two periprosthetic joint infections and two cases of major revision surgery. CONCLUSION: This study assessing Vancouver B2/3 fractures shows reproducible, good, short-term results in terms of subsidence and clinical functional outcome by the use of a modular revision stem. The transfemoral approach together with the modular stem allows for a stable fixation and good fracture healing. However, our data and review of the literature also documents the difficulties and higher complication rate associated with Vancouver B2/3 fractures.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".