Who Is Treating Periprosthetic Femur Fractures? An Analysis of the Periprosthetic Research Consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Periprosthetic femur fractures (PPFFs) following total hip arthroplasty (THA) have increased in the past decade as the demand for primary surgery continues to grow. Although there is now more evidence to describe the treatment of Vancouver B fractures, there is still limited knowledge regarding factors that cause surgeons to perform either an open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or revision THA (rTHA). The purpose of this study was to determine what type of surgeons treat Vancouver B PPFFs at 11 major academic institutions and if there are trends in treatment decision-making regarding the use of ORIF or rTHA based on surgical training or patient factors. Methods: This multicenter retrospective study evaluated patients surgically treated for Vancouver B PPFF after THA between 2014 and 2019. Patients from 11 academic centers located in the United States were included in this study. Surgical outcomes and patient demographics were evaluated based on surgeon training, surgical treatment type, and institution. Results: < .001) were independent risk factors for ORIF repair of Vancouver B fractures. There were no differences in outcomes based on surgeon subspecialty training. Conclusions: This study showed the trends in surgeons who surgically manage Vancouver B fractures at 11 major academic institutions and highlighted that regardless of surgical training or surgical treatment type, postoperative outcomes following management of PPFF were similar.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".