MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385969169 · doi:10.2340/17453674.2023.18263

Fracture pattern and risk factors for reoperation after treatment of 156 periprosthetic fractures around an anatomic cemented hip stem

2023· article· en· W4385969169 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ali Sattar, Johan Kärrholm, Michael Möller, Georgios Chatziagorou

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Orthopaedica · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePeriprostheticSurgeryRadiographyLesser TrochanterOrthopedic surgeryAvulsion fractureFemoral fractureArthroplastyDentistryFemurAvulsion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Lubinus SP2 stem has been associated with a very low risk of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFFs). We aimed, primarily, to study the radiographic morphology of PPFFs close to a Lubinus SP2 stem. Secondarily, we analyzed whether higher reoperation rate was correlated to the revision method chosen or to the characteristics of the fracture and of the bone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 156 femoral fractures close to a Lubinus cemented stem. These fractures were treated in 40 hospitals in Sweden between 2006 and 2011 and were followed up until 2019. Data from the Swedish Arthroplasty Register was used. Medical records and radiographs were studied. The fractures were classified according to the Vancouver classification. The fracture location and anatomy were delineated. We also measured the remaining attachment index (RAI) and the canal thickness ratio. RESULTS: Vancouver type C (n = 101) and spiral fractures (n = 67, 41 in Vancouver C and 26 in Vancouver B) were the most common fracture types. 4 fractures were avulsion of the greater trochanter. The remaining 51 fractures occurred around the stem (B1: 25, B2: 16, and B3: 10). B fractures were more commonly reoperated on (18 of 51, 35%) than type C fractures (11 of 101, 11%, P = 0.001). In most femurs with type B3 fracture, the fracture line covered an area only around the stem, but in all B1 and in 11 of 16 B2 fractures, it was extended even distal to the stem. ORIF instead of stem revision in B2 fractures, use of short stems or plates, and inadequate reduction of the fractures were risk factors for subsequent reoperations. CONCLUSION: The higher reoperation rate in type B fractures, compared with fractures distal to the stem, could be caused by their higher degree of complexity and reduced capacity for healing in the region around the stem.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa OrthopaedicaSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207