MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399446761 · doi:10.1016/j.arth.2024.05.087

Acute Periprosthetic Hip Fractures With Short, Uncemented Femoral Stems

2024· article· en· W4399446761 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Staunton, Khalifa Alhojailan, Charles Desgagné, Laura M. Epure, David J. Zukor, Olga L. Huk, John Antoniou

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Arthroplasty · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriprostheticMedicineSurgeryArthroplasty

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Uncemented femoral stems in hip arthroplasty have shown excellent long-term results, and several systematic studies indicate satisfactory performance of short stems. However, biomechanical and finite element analysis studies have suggested that shorter stems allow greater micromotion, producing greater strain at the implant-bone interface, which potentially increases the risk for periprosthetic fracture (PPF). We sought to assess this risk within our unit. METHODS: Our institution's arthroplasty database was searched for all primary total hip arthroplasties using short femoral stems performed between July 14, 2009 and August 29, 2022. The overall PPF rate and the PPF rate for individual femoral stems were established. Preoperative X-rays for each case were analyzed to characterize individual proximal femoral geometry. A data analysis was performed to identify risk factors for PPF. RESULTS: For the time period assessed, 3,192 short femoral stems were implanted. This included 1,561 of stem A and 1,631 of stem B. Women constituted 55.37% of the cohort. The average patient age was 66 years (range, 22 to 95). The PPF rate was 0.6%, with 19 PPFs identified at a follow-up of 3 months. There was a significantly higher fracture rate in stem A (0.96%) compared to stem B (0.25%) (P ≤ .01). Proximal femoral geometry, age, and sex were not determined to be risk factors for PPF in our cohort. Individual surgeons and surgical approaches appeared to confer no increased risk. There was no significant difference in average stem length, but multivariate analysis identified stem type and stem length as an independent risk factor for PPF. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified individual stem and stem length as independent risk factors for PPF within our cohort. PPF is a multifactorial issue, and consensus on emerging risk factors such as implant design will hopefully inform decisions that can provide further risk reduction for individual patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0060.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of ArthroplastySame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207