Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Is a Feasible Alternative to Femoral Revision Arthroplasty in Geriatric Patients with Vancouver B2/3 Type Periprosthetic Fractures: A Study Analyzing In-Hospital Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The surgical management of periprosthetic femoral fractures is particularly challenging in geriatric patients due to physiological limitations. The choice between open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and hip revision arthroplasty for treating Vancouver B2 and B3 fractures remains controversial. This study aims to contribute further evidence by analyzing the in-hospital outcomes in geriatric patients with Vancouver B2/3 fractures. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 133 patients treated for Vancouver B2/3 fractures at a level I trauma center from 2017 to 2023. Data were collected on preclinical characteristics, comorbidities, Vancouver classification, surgery-related parameters, and postoperative outcomes for an age- and gender-matched analysis. A subgroup analysis was also conducted on patients classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class 3 and 4. Results: Among the 133 patients, 85 suffered Vancouver B2 fractures and 48 Vancouver B3 fractures. Age-and-gender-matched analysis revealed that ORIF was more commonly performed in patients with higher ASA grades. A subgroup analysis of ASA 3 and 4 patients and an age-and-gender-matched analysis showed that ORIF resulted in shorter operation times and less blood loss. No significant differences were found in mortality or complication rates. Conclusions: ORIF is associated with shorter operation times, less bleeding, and comparable in-hospital outcomes in treating Vancouver B2/3 fractures in higher-risk geriatric patients compared to revision arthroplasty. The retrospective design and small sample size in the ORIF group are limitations of the study. Further studies with functional evaluation are still required.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".