Femoral revision in periprosthetic fractures using a titanium modular fluted tapered stem: mortality and clinical and radiological outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to evaluate the mortality and the outcomes of femoral revision in periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) using a titanium modular fluted tapered stem. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed femoral revisions performed for PFF with a titanium modular fluted tapered stem in 25 patients. The average age was 74.32 years. In 21 patients the type of fracture was Vancouver B2 and type B3 in 4 cases. The mean follow-up was 29.16 (0.83-104.1) months SD ± 29.49. RESULTS: The 30-day and 1-year mortality were 8% and 12% respectively. The mean value of the Charlson Comorbidity Index was 4.8 and the mean value of ASA score was 2.4. The average time to surgery from admittance was 5.45 days with 20% of patients operated on within 48 hours. A significant correlation was found between ASA score and mortality. The mean HHS was 76 points; good-excellent results were recorded in 56% of patients. 72% had no pain and 28% had slight pain (VAS 1-3). 52% of patients were able to walk without pain, limp or aids. The mean implant subsidence was 1.57 mm and superior to 5 mm in 2 cases. As complications we recorded 4 implant dislocations (16%) and 2 infections. Reoperation rate was 12%. CONCLUSIONS: Femoral revision with a modular fluted tapered stem in patients with periprosthetic fractures results in good clinical and radiological outcomes. However, mortality remains high and, despite the modularity design, dislocation is the most frequent complication.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".