Periprosthetic Fractures of the Femur after Total Hip Arthroplasty and Hemiarthroplasty: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Periprosthetic fractures of the femur after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hemiarthroplasty represent relatively uncommon but challenging complications. The incidence of these types of fractures has been rising, owing to an increasing number of hip arthroplasties performed, aging population, and prevalent use of uncemented stems, which may have unsuccessful long-term results compared with use of cemented stems. Method of treatment has been generally based on the Vancouver classification system that describes radiographic characteristics of fractures and stability of the femoral stems in respect to placement in the bone. In particular, the presence of loose stems has often indicated the need for revision THA; on the other hand, fractures located around and distal to well-fixed stems typically have been treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). The failure to preoperatively identify loose stems may result in unsuccessful treatment with ORIF. I reviewed clinical evaluation, mortality rates, and treatment of patients with Vancouver types A, B1, B2, B3, and C periprosthetic femur fractures. Appropriate treatment of these challenging injuries requires highlevel surgical technique, ranging from use of biologicallyfriendly methods to performing complex revision THA.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".