693 A Retrospective Audit for Analysing Prostheses in Peri-Prosthetic Hip Fractures for Adult Patients at East Lancashire Hospitals Trust (ELHT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim This audit aims to evaluate patients in ELHT with Periprosthetic Hip Fractures and their management from 2020 to 2023. Background Periprosthetic Hip fractures are fractures that occur in the region of a hip implant following a hip arthroplasty. It is an increasingly prevalent complication of hip arthroplasty that can be attributed to the increase in arthroplasty procedures performed, a rise in the ageing population and a desire to improve quality of life. Method This was a retrospective audit was performed at ELHT. Patient data was collected from the Orthopaedic register and parameters were set to include patients having a periprosthetic hip fracture from 2020 to 2023. Exclusion criteria were set to exclude periprosthetic fractures before 2020 or after 2023. We got a sample population consisting of 48 patients. Results 25 patients had cemented hip prostheses and 23 had uncemented prostheses in their primary procedure. Among those with cemented hip prostheses, 10 patients were managed conservatively, 9 patients had an ORIF and 4 patients underwent a revision procedure whereas, among those with uncemented hip prostheses, 9 patients were managed conservatively, 6 patients had an ORIF and 5 patients underwent a revision procedure. Furthermore, 20 cases of Vancouver B fractures were noted in uncemented prostheses as compared to 12 in cemented prostheses. Conclusions The most common prostheses that sustained a periprosthetic hip fracture was the C Stem implant, 12 patients. The most common management in this sample population was conservative management which was in 39.6% of patients.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".