Management of Vancouver C Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture after Hip Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFF) is difficult. Careful pre-operative planning and meticulous intra-operative technique during hip arthroplasty is the most important aspect in the prevention of periprosthetic fractures.Objective: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the results of surgical treatment of Vancouver C periprosthetic femoral fractures.Patients and The study included 18 patients presented to orthopedic department at Zagazig University Hospitals. ORIF with plate osteosynthesis was used in patients with type C PPF fractures. Time of follow up from six months to one year.Results: Seven patients responded good satisfaction (38.9%), five responded fair satisfaction (27.8%), three patients had excellent feedback (16.7%), and three patients had poor experience (16.7%).The final results were affected by the time lapse before the occurrence of fracture and the time lapse before union and wasn't affected by the age, sex or the timing of occurrence of the fracture. Functional outcome after healing of the fracture was less than the pre-injury stage.Conclusion: ORIF with plate osteosynthesis was satisfactory methods for treatment of Vancouver C Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".