Quality of Life Following Vancouver Type B Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a common orthopedic procedure. It helps restore mobility and reduce pain in patients with hip joint disorders. Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) is an acute complication that may occur after primary THA. The rate of PFFs after primary total hip replacement is approximately 1%. The aim of this study was to assess the overall quality of life of patients following PFF surgery. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study included 60 patients with PFFs of Vancouver type B (32 females and 28 males, respectively), with a mean age of 73.02 ± 8.97 years and 30 controls who underwent primary THA. Quality of life was assessed at least 12 months postoperatively using the validated Serbian SF-36 questionnaire and clinical examination. Results: Older age correlated with declines in Physical and Emotional functioning, Vitality (Energy/fatigue), and Social activities (overall SF-36: r = −0.619, p < 0.01). Patients who underwent femoral stem revision with osteosynthesis (B2 and B3) showed better quality of life compared to those who underwent osteosynthesis alone (B1) in General health perceptions (t = −2.266, p = 0.027) and Physical functioning (t = 2.526, p = 0.014). Patients after PFF surgery had lower postoperative quality of life compared to those who underwent primary THA (overall SF-36: 66.68 ± 15.60 vs. 84.10 ± 14.65, t = −5.092, p < 0.0005). Conclusions: Patients with PFF have a lower quality of life than those after primary THA, while combined stem revision and osteosynthesis yield better outcomes than osteosynthesis alone.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".