MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6989067010

Advancing the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty: A finite element analysis and experimental study

2022· dissertation· en· W6989067010 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUCL Discovery (University College London) · 2022
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriprostheticFixation (population genetics)Femoral fractureTotal hip arthroplastyArthroplastyBiomechanicsStress shieldingHip arthroplasty
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a clinically successful procedure that is broadly divided into two main categories: cemented and uncemented. Factors such as stem malalignment and poor bone quality has been associated with poor long-term outcomes and increased complications such as periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF). Our understanding of the impact of these factors in cemented and uncemented THA and on subsequent PFF fixation (PFFx) is still limited, and not well biomechanically understood. \nThus, the use of cemented vs uncemented stem implantation in THA and subsequent management of PFF is heavily debated. Treatment for Vancouver type B1 PFF often involves fixation via a fracture plate. Fixation failure due to hardware failure (such as plate breakage) vary widely (5%-43%), often with severe consequences such as higher risk of mortality. \nThe overall aim of this thesis was to advance our fundamental understanding of treatment pathways for PFFs and their long-term management. The specific aims were: \n1.\tTo investigate the effect of stem fixation method, stem positioning, and compromised bone stock in THA. \n2.\tTo understand the biomechanical effect of cemented and uncemented THA on the fracture fixation of periprosthetic femoral fractures. \n3.\tTo develop a novel fracture fixation plate for PFF to address the current problems seen in clinical settings. \nResults demonstrated a biomechanical difference between cemented and uncemented THA, and subsequent PFF fixation. Computational models demonstrated a good agreement with experimental data. The manufactured novel fracture plate showed promising initial results, however, requires more rigorous in vitro testing before being considered for market. The modelling approach and the models that were developed and validated here can be used to further our understanding into the biomechanical behaviour of different stem fixation scenarios, its influence on the occurrence of periprosthetic fractures, and subsequent fixation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUCL Discovery (University College London)Same topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207