924 Management of Vancouver B2 Periprosthetic Femoral Shaft Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim An increase in hip arthroplasty surgery within our ageing population is leading to a rise in periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures. The Vancouver system is widely used to classify these fractures. Vancouver type B2 fractures are a subject of ongoing management debate, fixation versus revision arthroplasty. The aim of this study was to review the management and outcomes of all patients with a periprosthetic hip fracture over five years in a high-volume single centre with a particular focus on Vancouver B2 fractures. Method A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients admitted between September 2016 and September 2021 with periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures. Data on demographics, surgical management, and outcomes were gathered from electronic patient records. Outcomes were radiological union, mortality, and other complications. Results 168 patients were included in analysis, with an average age of 81. 54% of cases were Vancouver B2. 117 were managed with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), 51 with revision. 38% of patients died within the study period. Overall, 80% of revisions demonstrated radiological union, compared to 72% of ORIFs. 74% of Vancouver B2 revisions demonstrated radiological union, compared to 79% of ORIFs. 5.1% of patients died within the study period following revision, compared to 8.5% of those following ORIF. 4.3% of ORIFs went on to require revision surgery. Conclusions Periprosthetic fractures are challenging, especially B2 fractures often occurring in frail patients less fit for major surgery. This study has shown similar outcomes in revision and ORIF, suggesting B2 fractures can be effectively treated with ORIF.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".