The impact of stem fixation method on Vancouver Type B1 periprosthetic femoral fracture management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Our understanding of the impact of the stem fixation method in total hip arthroplasty (THA) on the subsequent management of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) is still limited. This study aimed to investigate and quantify the effect of the stem fixation method, i.e., cemented vs. uncemented THA, on the management of Vancouver Type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures with the same plate. METHODS: Eight laboratory models of synthetic femora were divided into two groups and implanted with either a cemented or uncemented hip prosthesis. The overall stiffness and strain distribution were measured under an anatomical one-legged stance. All eight specimens underwent an osteotomy to simulate Vancouver type B1 PFF's. Fractures were then fixed using the same extramedullary plate and screws. The same measurements and fracture movement were taken under the same loading conditions. RESULTS: Highlighted that the uncemented THA and PFF fixation constructs had a lower overall stiffness. Subsequently, the mechanical strain on the fracture plate for the uncemented construct was higher compared to the cemented constructs. CONCLUSION: PFF fixation of a Vancouver type B1 fracture using a plate may have a higher risk of failure in uncemented THAs.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".