Periprosthetic fractures of the tibial shaft following long-stemmed total knee arthroplasty: A case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic fractures of the tibia are uncommon complications after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Therefore, there is still clinical debate regarding the appropriate treatment method. This study presents the case of a patient with two successive periprosthetic fractures of the tibial shaft treated with revision TKA (rTKA) and intramedullary fixation. CASE SUMMARY: A 65-year-old woman was treated for tibial shaft pseudarthrosis after a periprosthetic fracture. The patient underwent rTKA with a tibial component exchange to a long-stemmed implant. At her 1.5-year follow-up visit, partial asymptomatic bone union was noted with no prosthesis loosening. The patient achieved 0° to 120° range of motion and a stable knee, and reported high satisfaction. Improvements were observed in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) from 74 to 17, and in the knee society scores (KSS) from 56 to 91 (clinical) and 10 to 80 (functional). After 2.5 years, the patient sustained a second fracture below the original site due to low-energy trauma. The rTKA with intramedullary stabilization was performed. One year later, WOMAC and clinical and functional KSS were 15, 81, and 80, respectively. Despite tibial shortening and lower limb inequality, the patient remains very satisfied and does not experience any issues with daily activities nor weight-bearing. CONCLUSION: There is little consensus in the literature on the management of tibial shaft periprosthetic fractures. Intramedullary stabilization may yield excellent outcomes, but individual case discussion is necessary for rTKA indications.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".