Treatment of Vancouver B2 Femur Fractures With Open Reduction Internal Fixation Versus Revision Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femur fractures have traditionally been treated with revision arthroplasty. However, there is increasing evidence that open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) may be a valid alternative treatment strategy. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of ORIF versus revision arthroplasty for the treatment of Vancouver B2 fractures and evaluate the influence of the treating surgeon’s fellowship training on treatment selection. Methodology This was a retrospective cohort study of 31 patients treated for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures (16 ORIF and 15 revision arthroplasty) at a single academic Level 1 trauma center. Outcome measures included one-year mortality, revision, reoperation, infection, and blood loss. Results There were no statistically significant differences in revision, reoperation, or infection at an average follow-up of 65 weeks. Median estimated blood loss was higher in the arthroplasty group (700 cc versus 400 cc; P = 0.04). There were five deaths in the ORIF group versus one in the revision group (P = 0.18). Cases treated by surgeons with fellowship training in arthroplasty were more likely to be treated with revision arthroplasty (10/11, 90.9%) than those treated by surgeons with fellowship training in trauma (5/15, 33.3%; P < 0.01). Conclusions There was no difference in outcomes between the two treatment strategies, but revision was associated with higher blood loss. The appropriate treatment method should be based on surgeon familiarity and patients' characteristics.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".