Do All Postoperative Vancouver B2 Fractures Require Revision Arthroplasty With Cementless Stems?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Management of periprosthetic fractures has been guided by the Vancouver classification, which recommends revision for fractures around a loose femoral implant (B2). New studies have challenged this approach, demonstrating acceptable outcomes with internal fixation. This study evaluates our experience with Vancouver B2 fractures, comparing internal fixation to femoral revision. We hypothesized that in select cases with cementless stems, internal fixation would provide acceptable results with reduced morbidity. Methods A retrospective review was performed of periprosthetic hip fractures treated at our institution between 1 January 2012 and 4 November 2022. We excluded patients who did not have prior radiographs and evidence of stem subsidence, suggestive of a Vancouver B2 fracture. Thirteen patients were included in the analysis. Results Four patients (31%) underwent revision of the femoral component, 4 patients (31%) underwent plating, and 5 patients (38%) underwent internal fixation with cerclage cabling. The average operative duration was 158 minutes, 203 minutes, and 62 minutes for the revision, plating, and cabling cohorts, respectively ( P = .009). Blood loss was 463 cc, 510 cc, and 90 cc for the revision, plating, and cabling cohorts, respectively ( P = .036). Three patients in both the revision and plating cohorts each received a transfusion (75%), whereas no patients in the cabling cohort required a transfusion ( P = .033). All patients demonstrated fracture healing on the postoperative radiographs. No patients required additional surgery during the follow-up period. Conclusions We have demonstrated that Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures with intact lateral cortices may be treated with internal fixation with cerclage cabling with excellent 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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".