Treatment strategy and clinical outcomes of surgically managed hip periprosthetic fractures: analysis from a high-volume centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hip periprosthetic fractures (PPF) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) are becoming increasingly prevalent. Their management is secondary to the fracture type and the stability of the implant. This study aimed to provide the outcomes of operatively managed PPF from a high-volume centre to help guide future decision making. Methods: This was a retrospective study of prospectively collected data from January 2008 to January 2021. Patient demographics, implant specific details, and fixation strategy were collected. Complications including infection, reoperation, re-fracture, re-revision, were collected. Short-term mortality was evaluated at 3 months and 1 year. P-values <0.05 were considered significant. Results: 282 surgically managed PPF were identified. Vancouver B2 were predominant in 52% of the cases. Revision alone and revision with additional fixation were the most frequent strategies in 168 cases (60%). Complications requiring reoperation occurred in 20% of the cases, with infection as the most frequent (8.5%). Mortality rate was 7.8% at 3 months and 15.7% at 1 year, with significantly lower rates in B2 type. B2 fractures treated with cemented stems had a significantly lower 1-year mortality than distal fit revisions. Conclusions: PPF is associated with a high complication rate. Revision alone and revision with additional fixation remain the preferred method in B2/B3 type fractures, however, cemented revision can yield similar outcomes with lower short-term mortality. Considering the high-risk elderly and frail category of patients, a multidisciplinary team is necessary to improve outcomes and reduce mortality.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".