MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416222498 · doi:10.1302/1358-992x.2025.13.074

DOES STEM DESIGN AFFECT THE INCIDENCE OF PERIPROSTHETIC FEMORAL FRACTURES AFTER ARTHROPLASTY FOR FEMORAL NECK FRACTURES? A SECONDARY ANALYSIS OF THE HEALTH TRIAL

2025· article· en· W4416222498 on OpenAlexaff
Panayiotis D. Megaloikonomos, L M Epure, G. De Petrillo, Claudine Caron, George Laggis, O. Huk, D. J. Zukor, Mohit Bhandari, John Antoniou

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriprostheticArthroplastyIncidence (geometry)CollarFemoral neckTotal hip arthroplastyRandomized controlled trialProspective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) after arthroplasty for fragility femoral neck fractures (FNFs) remain a major concern, as they carry high morbidity for this sensitive population. In this study we tried to evaluate how stem design influences the risk of PFFs after hemiarthroplasty (HA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) for low energy FNFs. We performed a secondary analysis to the HEALTH trial; a multicenter, prospective randomized control trial which assessed THA vs HA for low-energy FNFs at 2 years. We assessed 1374 patients (414 male, 960 female) with a mean age of 80 years. The incidence of PFFs was compared between cemented vs cementless stems. Within the cemented stem group (n=896), we further analyzed the effect of taper-slip (n=482) vs composite-beam (n=414) designs, while within the cementless stem group (n=478), we assessed the impact of single-wedge stems (n=206) vs metaphyseal filling stems (n=272). The role of a collar (n=87) was also examined, within the press-fit stems. Student's t-tests were used to assess continuous variables, and chi-squared tests for categorical variables. Statistical significance was set at p < 0 .05. Between the 1374 patients of this study, 72 patients sustained a PFF (5.2 %). Early PFFs (90 days) in 15 patients. Cemented stems had significantly lower incidence of PFFs, as compared to their cementless counterparts (2.6% vs 10.3%, p 0.05). Most of the PPFs in the composite-beam group occurred early (83%), while most of taper slip PPFs were late (55%). There was no difference between the examined press-fit stems, while the presence of a collar did not show protective results (p>0.05). In this population, cementless stems have a very high PFF rate, regardless the type of stem or the presence of collar. Cemented fixation is the safest option. Composite beam stems have higher early PFF rate. Taper-slip stems are responsible mostly for late fractures; raising concerns about their performance in longer follow-up.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic ProceedingsSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207