Awareness of Stress Concentration Points for Prevention and Management of Periprosthetic Fractures Following Plate Installation Reinforcement: A Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In an aging society, the incidence of periprosthetic fractures will increase owing to the increasing number of patients undergoing joint replacement surgery. We experienced a case of recurrent periprosthetic fracture in a patient who had undergone ipsilateral hip bipolar hemiarthroplasty (BHA) and total knee arthroplasty. Based on our experience, we discuss the treatment strategy for periprosthetic fractures in patients at a high risk of fall. Case Report: An 84-year-old woman, who had undergone total knee arthroplasty 9 years ago and ipsilateral hip BHA 2 years ago, sustained a knee condylar fracture (Su classification type III) due to fall. This knee periprosthetic fracture posed a challenge for osteosynthesis; therefore, revision total knee arthroplasty was performed using a hinge-type prosthesis. During this surgery, we installed a reinforcement plate on the femoral shaft to prevent fractures because of the short stem tip distance between the hip and knee prosthesis (53 mm). The procedure was successful, and the patient regained her walking ability. However, 6 months after surgery, the patient sustained a hip periprosthetic fracture (Vancouver type B2) due to a fall, despite precautionary plate installation. In case of hip stem insertion, the stress caused by fall is concentrated on the infratrochanteric region, as reflected in her fracture site. From a mechanical perspective, this fracture was not accidental. The plate reinforcement procedure may have been inadequate because the top of the plate was located at the infratrochanteric region. Conclusion: Periprosthetic fractures may occur despite the installation of a plate for fracture prevention. With a total hip arthroplasty or hip BHA stem inserted, a fall could result in a subtrochanteric fracture.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| 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".