Unstable Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femoral fracture fixation: A biomechanical comparison between a novel C-shaped memory alloy implant and cerclage wiring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare the biomechanical stability of a novel, C-shaped nickel-titanium shape memory alloy (SMA) implant (C-clip) with traditional cerclage wiring in the fixation of a Vancouver B1 (VB1) periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF). METHODS: In total, 18 synthetic femoral fracture models were constructed to obtain unstable VB1 fracture with an oblique fracture line 8 cm below the lesser trochanter. For each model, the distal portion was repaired using a 10-hole locking plate and four distal bi-cortical screws. The proximal portion was repaired using either three, threaded cerclage wirings or three, novel C-shaped implants. Specimens underwent biomechanical testing using axial compression, torsional and four-point bending tests. Each test was performed on three specimens. RESULTS: The C-clip was statistically significantly stronger (i.e., stiffer) than cerclage wiring in the three biomechanical tests. For axial compression, medians (ranges) were 39 (39-41) and 35 (35-35) N/mm, for the C-clip and cerclage wiring, respectively. For torsion, medians (ranges) were, 0.44 (0.44-0.45) and 0.30 (0.30-0.33) N/mm for the C-clip and cerclage wiring, respectively. For the four-point bending test, medians (ranges) were 39 (39-41) and 28 (28-31) N/mm; for the C-clip and cerclage wiring, respectively. CONCLUSION: Results from this small study show that the novel, C-shaped SMA appears to be biomechanically superior to traditional cerclage wiring in terms of stiffness, axial compression, torsion and four-point bending, and may be a valuable alternative in the repair of VB1 PFF. Further research is necessary to support these results.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".