Functional and Radiological Outcome of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Following Hip Hemiarthroplasty: A Single Centre Analysis of 22 Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractAim: The aim of this retrospective study was to determine the functional and radiological outcomes of thetreatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures following hip hemiarthroplasty.Materials and Methods: This retrospective study was conducted on a series of 22 patients with periprostheticfemoral fractures after hip hemiarthroplasty. PFF was classified according to the Vancouver Classification system.The characteristics of patients, fractures and treatment outcomes in terms of complications, mortality andfunctionality were analysed. Radiological results were evaluated using the Beals and Tower’s criteria and HarrisHip Score (HHS) was used to evaluate the functional outcome.Results: The mean age was 74.2 years. Thirteen (59.1%) fractures occured in women while 9 (40.9%) in men,and the left hip was the most commonly involved (63.6%). As for comorbidities, 8 patients (36.4%) had aAmerican Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of 1-2 and 14 (63.6%) had ASA score of 3-4. The greatmajority of fractures were caused by slip down (81.8%), followed by spontaneous fractures (13.7%) and roadtraffic accident (4.5%). According to the Vancouver classification, there were 5 (22.8%) type A, 10 (45.4%) typeB1, 2 (9.1%) type B2, 1 (4.5%) type B3 and 4 (18.2%) type C fractures. HHS showed good to excellent result in31.9 % patient and fair to poor result in 68.1 % patients at final assessment.Conclusion: Periprosthetic femoral fractures after hemiarthroplasty are more common in women, and usuallyoccur in patients with significant morbidity. The Vancouver classification is widely used to deal with thesefractures and it has been emphasised that a proper assessment is important to avoid incorrect methods of treatment
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".