Revision Arthroplasty Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Vancouver Type-B2 and B3 Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
»: Revision arthroplasty (RA) continues to be considered the gold standard in the surgical treatment of Vancouver type-B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. However, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) has been associated with satisfactory outcomes. Thus, there is an ongoing discussion regarding the optimal surgical strategy for the treatment of these fractures. »: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, no significant differences in clinical and radiographic outcome were observed between ORIF and RA in the treatment of Vancouver type-B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures. »: ORIF of Vancouver type-B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures was associated with higher revision and reoperation rates than those after RA. »: Compared with RA, a significantly higher rate of subsidence was found in the ORIF group in Vancouver type-B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures whereas no significant difference in terms of loosening was observed. »: In the comparison of RA and ORIF for the treatment of Vancouver type-B2 and B3 fractures, the percentage of patients achieving full weight-bearing did not differ significantly. »: Mortality rates did not differ between RA and ORIF in the treatment of Vancouver type-B2 and B3 fractures. »: Overall complication rates did not differ between RA and ORIF in the treatment of Vancouver type-B2 and B3 fractures. »: We found a high heterogeneity in applied surgical and fixation techniques in the ORIF group.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".