Analysis of complications in 97 periprosthetic Vancouver B2 fractures treated either by internal fixation or revision arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The treatment of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures after hip arthroplasty is still a matter of debate. Revision Arthroplasty (RA) was long thought to be the treatment of choice, however several recent papers suggested that Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF) is a viable option for selected B2 fractures. Complication rates of 14-26% have been reported following surgical treatment of B2 fractures. No significant difference between RA and ORIF in the complication rates nor in the functional outcome was observed. METHOD: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 97 consecutive Vancouver B2 fractures treated according to the algorithm at our institution from 2007 to 2020 and recorded complications and patient specific data. RESULT: From the 97 patient, 45 fractures were treated with RA while 52 fractures were treated with ORIF. Thirteen patients in the RA group had a complication that needed revision (28%) and 11 patients in the ORIF group needed revision (21%). There was no significant difference between complication rates. The reason for failure in the 13 RA patients were infection (n = 4), stem subsidence (n = 1), refracture after a new fall (n = 3), secondary dislocation of the greater trochanter (n = 1) and dislocation (n = 4). The reason for failure in the 11 ORIF patients that were revised were infection (n = 5), persistent symptomatic stem loosening (n = 3) and refracture (n = 3) after a new fall. CONCLUSION: ORIF can be used to revise cemented and non-cemented shafts in more than half of Vancouver B2 fractures with no difference in complication rates when compared to RA. A periprosthetic fracture around the hip has a 21-28% risk of a re-operation after revision surgery with infection and re-fracture after a new fall being the most frequent cause of re-operation.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".