Outcomes of modular stem for the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fracture: a systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) are a frequent complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Both modular and non-modular tapered fluted titanium (TFT) stems could be used in total hip revisions (THRs). Nevertheless, the most appropriate femoral stem type is still under debate. The current systematic review aims to analyze the survival rate and all causes of stem revision, the overall complication rate and reason for reoperation, and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in THR for PFF using the modular tapered titanium stems (MTTS). Methods: A comprehensive search in four databases, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases, was performed, and following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, starting from 1,259 studies. The risk of bias was analyzed according to the MINORS tool system. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed for all data extracted. Results: Eighteen clinical studies were included in the qualitative analysis for a total of 775 patients enrolled. A mean MINORS criteria score of 9.8 [8-12] was reported. The overall survival of MTTS for PFF treatment was 95.4%, with an overall reintervention rate of 10.3% at an average follow-up of 4.5 years. Despite the use of modular components, postoperative hip instability remains the most frequent complication and cause of reintervention in these patients. In addition, a mean postoperative Harris Hip Score (HHS) of 78.1 was reported, which was considered acceptable given the high mean age of 74.1 years at the time of the revision. Conclusions: Several therapeutic approaches and a wide variety of implants have been described in the literature for PFF management; however, no one solution has proven superior to others in the PFF treatment. MTTS has become a commonly used treatment option for Vancouver B2 and B3 fractures because they provide good clinical and radiological results with a reasonable survival rate. However, the complication rate of MTTS is still high.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".