Occult Acetabular Fracture Associated With Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture (Vancouver Type B3) Following Hemiarthroplasty in an Elderly Patient: A Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increase in life expectancy, the number of elderly individuals undergoing hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty has risen, leading to a higher incidence of implant-related fractures. Diagnosing fractures, especially occult and non-displaced ones, can be challenging even with advanced imaging techniques. This report describes the diagnostic challenges and surgical management of a rare combination of periprosthetic femoral fracture and an ipsilateral acetabular occult non-displaced fracture. An 87-year-old woman with a history of left hemiarthroplasty experienced severe left hip pain after a fall and required an ambulance. Despite computed tomography evaluations, preoperative diagnosis of a left periprosthetic femoral fracture with stem loosening and ipsilateral acetabular occult non-displaced fractures was challenging. Intraoperatively, a non-displaced acetabular fracture with severe bone fragility was unexpectedly found. The surgical procedure involved inserting a revision femoral stem to bypass the fracture site and performing osteosynthesis for the acetabular fracture. Two years postoperatively, the patient's activities of daily living improved to the preoperative level. Periprosthetic femoral fractures combined with acetabular fractures can occur following hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty, presenting significant diagnostic challenges in preoperative imaging evaluations. Surgeons should always consider the possibility of acetabular fractures when planning revision total hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic femoral fractures and be prepared to address them appropriately.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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".