MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Does CT improve the accuracy of predicting implant fixation status for periprosthetic fractures around uncemented femoral components?

2025· article· en· W4410909343 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Reese Courington, Rogério Ferreira, M. Kareem Shaath, Cody Green, Joshua R. Langford, George J. Haidukewych

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Bone & Joint Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriprostheticMedicineFixation (population genetics)RadiographyImplantInternal fixationSurgeryArthroplastyNuclear medicineRadiologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims: Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFFs) around total hip arthroplasty (THA) stems are challenging. Typically, loose stems are revised, while well-fixed implants undergo fracture open reduction and internal fixation. Determining implant fixation status preoperatively is important. The purpose of this study was to define the accuracy of predicting the status of preoperative stem fixation using radiography and CT. Methods: A total of 24 patients with Vancouver B-type PPFF with preoperative radiography and CT scans were included. Patients with obviously loose implants (detached or subsided stem), fractures that occurred within 90 days of index THA, and cemented femoral components were excluded. Two fellowship-trained adult reconstruction surgeons and two traumatologists reviewed radiographs and predicted stem fixation status. They then evaluated CT scans, and fixation status was reassessed. Each surgeon undertook two evaluations one month apart. The correct response was determined by intraoperative findings. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability values were calculated, as well as validity. Results: Overall, 15 implants (62.5%) were well-fixed and nine (37.5%) were loose. Radiography alone predicted correct fixation status in 53.1% of cases (102/192). When adding CT, correct predictions improved to 54.7% (105/192). Fixation status predictions were changed in 18.2% of cases (35/192) after reviewing CT scans: 8.3% (16/192) from correct to incorrect, and 9.9% (19/192) from incorrect to correct. Interobserver reliability ranged from poor to moderate agreement, and intraobserver reliability demonstrated moderate agreement for all raters. No difference in accuracy was noted between adult reconstruction or trauma surgeons. Conclusion: The ability to predict fixation status for PPFFs around uncemented femoral components remains challenging. The addition of preoperative CT did not significantly improve accuracy. Intraoperative testing of femoral component fixation status is essential to determine if revision or fixation is appropriate. Preoperative CT for Vancouver B PPFF does not significantly improve accuracy in assessing stem fixation status compared with plain radiography.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Bone & Joint JournalSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207