Stem revision vs. internal fixation in Vancouver B2/B3 periprosthetic hip fractures: systematic review and metanalysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures (PFF) are associated with stem instability and often require a demanding stem implant revision (SR) or internal fixation (ORIF). This latter surgery is increasingly performed in the last few years instead of SR, but it is unclear which is the best treatment to manage PFF patients. The aim of this study is the compare the outcomes of B2/B3 PFF managed by either ORIF or SR, by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cochrane Database, PubMed, Google Scholar and MEDLINE were examined to find out relevant publications dealing with the different outcomes of SR vs. ORIF in B2/B3 PFF of the hip. The effect model (EM) was calculated using Cohen´s d index. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included, reporting on a total of 1629 patients (564 ORIF and 1065 SR). The pooled random EM estimates for reoperation was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.39-1.96; I2 = 78%) in favor of ORIF surgery; EM for complications was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.45-2.27; I2 = 85%) without difference among procedures. The EM for transfusion was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.46-1.12; I2 = 62%) in favor of fixation. CONCLUSION: ORIF and SR were both suitable and effective options in PFF patients, being associated to similar complications rates. Our results show that ORIF performance in PFF patients is associated to significantly less in blood loss, surgical time and in-hospital stay. These advantages are particularly appealing in patients with multiple comorbidities.
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 | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".