Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) after revision arthroplasty following periprosthetic femoral fractures Vancouver B2 and B3 in geriatric trauma patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to determine the outcome parameters of revision arthroplasties for periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFF) with a particular attention to quality of life (QoL) and mobility. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective single-center study of PPFF with loose implants that underwent revision arthroplasty. Depending on individual patient characteristics, either an uncemented or cemented revision stem was chosen. Data collection included demographics, complications, clinical course and outcome parameters. Follow-up took place at least one year postoperatively. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2016, 43 patients could be included. Most patients (63%) were able to walk independently or with a walking aid after one year and amongst the surveyed patients 77% were able to reside at home. Concerning the QoL assessment, a high index of 0.8 ± 0.1 has been reached after one year. Mortality pointed out to be 9% after one year and 28% in general. CONCLUSION: The treatment of PPFF remains challenging. Although complication rates and mortality are high in this frail collective of geriatric patients, revision arthroplasty leads to good postoperative results regarding mobility and quality of life.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".