Long locking plate combined with locking attachment plate in patients with periprosthetic femoral fracture around ipsilateral stem after total knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to introduce the surgical technique using long locking plate and locking attachment plate (LAP) in patient with periprosthetic femoral fracture around ipsilateral stem after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Moreover, we sought to investigate the outcomes of this fixation technique and to propose a new subtype in the existing classification of periprosthetic femoral fractures. METHODS: From January 2013 to January 2022, thirty-four consecutive periprosthetic femoral fractures around ipsilateral stem following TKA with minimum 1-year follow-up were enrolled in this study. Most cases were fixed with long-locking plate and LAP using the MIPO technique. For subgroup analysis, we classified patients with stemmed hip implant (group H) and stemmed knee implant (group K). Bone union, American Knee Society Score (AKSS) scale, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index for pain and function, and range of motion were investigated. RESULTS: The number of group H and K were 24 patients (70.6%) and 10 patients (29.4%), respectively. The mean age at operation was 71.5 years (range, 65‒85 years), and the mean follow-up period was 27.5 months (range, 12‒72 months). Bone union was confirmed radiographically in all patients, and the mean union time was 4.9 months (range, 3.5‒6 months). There were no significant differences in radiographic and clinical outcomes between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Long-locking plate combined with LAP showed favorable radiographic and clinical outcomes in patients with periprosthetic femoral fracture around ipsilateral stem after TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, Retrospective Case Series.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".