Predicting Vancouver Types B1 and B2 Periprosthetic Fractures of the Femur
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Periprosthetic fractures of the femur after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) can be complex and difficult injuries to treat. Because of the increased prevalence of THA, an overall increase is anticipated in the incidence of this complication. Vancouver types B1 and B2 periprosthetic femur fractures (defined as fractures around or just below the stem, with well-fixed and loose femoral stems, respectively) are particularly challenging to accurately classify and thereby treat owing to the difficulty in interpreting stability of stems on initial radiographs. To determine whether the method of stem fixation (ie, cement or press fit) may be a predictor of types B1 and B2 fractures, we performed a PubMed search and independently assessed data from 11 studies with 293 patients. Methods: Studies were included that provided individual patient data (ie, fracture type, method of stem fixation, and stability of stem at the time of revision procedure). Only patients with Vancouver types B1 and B2 fractures were included. Statistical analysis was performed using a random-effects model, estimated with a restricted maximum likelihood method. Results: A total of 59 and 92 cemented stems were found to be loose and well fixed, respectively (39% and 61%, respectively; n = 151). A total of 17 and 63 uncemented stems were loose and well fixed, respectively (22% and 78%, respectively; n = 80). The overall estimate of the odds ratio was 0.96 (95% confidence interval, 0.86–1.06). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that fixation method of stems cannot significantly predict the likelihood of having Vancouver types B1 and B2 fracture patterns.
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) | 0.000 | 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".