Prospective study on functional and radiological outcomes of cable plating system for periprosthetic femur fracture management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Periprosthetic femur fractures following hip arthroplasty or hemiarthroplasty are challenging complications that remain difficult to manage. Despite advances in surgical techniques and implant designs, effective treatment options are still needed. The cable plating system has shown potential in treating these fractures but requires further evaluation. Objectives: This study aims to assess the clinical and radiological outcomes of the cable plating system in managing periprosthetic femur fractures, focusing on fracture union, functional outcomes, and complications. Materials and Methods: Sixteen patients with periprosthetic femur fractures were treated using the cable plating system. Data on demographics, fracture characteristics, and intraoperative variables were collected. Patients were followed for 12 months, and radiological (fracture union) and functional outcomes (Harris Hip Score and Lower Extremity Functional Scale) were evaluated. Results: The mean age was 64 years, with 62.5% males. All patients had Vancouver type B1 fractures. The lateral approach was used in all cases without opening the joint. Complications included two wound infection (12.5%) and both the case had delayed union. 87.5% of patients achieved acceptable fracture union by 4 months. Harris Hip Scores were excellent in 12.5%, good in 50%. LEFS showed minimal limitation in 12.5% mild limitations in 50% and moderate limitations in 37.5%. Conclusion: The cable plating system effectively treats periprosthetic femur fractures, offering favourable fracture union and functional outcomes. These findings support the use of cable plating in managing such fractures, though further studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-ups are needed to confirm long-term benefits.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".