Femoral prosthesis fracture after hip arthroplasty revision: A Case Report and Review of Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: A solution revision prosthesis has a multilayer microporous Porocoat coating, and the availability of multiple stem body sizes ensures that the prosthesis is adapted to each patient's anatomical structure so that there a firm attachment with the bone cortex in the middle of the femur. Therefore, the Solution prosthesis is one of the most commonly used and most effective prostheses in total hip arthroplasty worldwide. PATIENT CONCERNS: We reported a case of a 54-year-old female patient with periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip arthroplasty. DIAGNOSIS: The case was identified as type B2 prosthesis loosening according to the Vancouver classification. INTERVENTIONS: We performed revision surgery on her using the Solution prosthesis. Seven months after the surgery, the patient developed a mid-femoral prosthesis fracture for no apparent reason. We performed a second revision surgery of the hip joint and allogeneic bone plate fixation. OUTCOMES: The patient was satisfied with the treatment. LESSONS: For patients with type B2 prosthesis loosening and prosthesis fracture, hip arthroplasty revision and an allogeneic bone plate could be used to ensure more stable support.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".