The Biomechanical Performance of Different Plate Fixation Configurations to Repair Vancouver Type C Periprosthetic Femur Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The incidence of femoral periprosthetic fractures (PPF) is rising. Vancouver type C PPFs compromise the majority type of fracture associated with high complication rates. The complexity of Vancouver C-type PPFs lies in the presence of the femoral stem in the proximal fracture fragment. This study compares the biomechanical performance of four plate fixation configurations to repair Vancouver type C periprosthetic femur fractures. Methods Six large adult 4th generation biomechanical low-density femur Sawbones instrumented with cemented femoral stems were used to conduct this study. A comminuted Vancouver-type C PPF was simulated and fixed with a plate. Four proximal fragment construct configurations were studied with combinations of unicortical screws, bicortical screws, and cerclage cable fixation. Constructs were loaded in axial compression and four-point bending, and the stiffness was calculated. Results Constructs with bicortical screw fixation had significantly greater stiffness than those with unicortical screw and cerclage cable fixation in axial and four-point bending loads. Constructs with cerclage cable and unicortical screw fixation had greater stiffness than ones with unicortical screw fixation. Conclusion Using bicortical screws in the proximal construct of Vancouver type C PPFs increases construct stiffness in axial and bending loads. Though controversial, using cerclage cables might have a place for construct augmentation when using only unicortical screws or a combination of unicortical and bicortical screws.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".