Factores predisponentes de fractura intraoperatoria de fémur en artroplastia total de cadera primaria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: the objective of this study was to characterize the predisposing factors for intraoperative femur fracture during primary total hip arthroplasty.Methods: from 1999 to 2010, 28 fractures occurring during 1943 primary total hip arthroplasties were analyzed, an incidence of 1.4%. Vancouver classification was used. The presence of predisposing factors, their treatment and clinical and radiological outcomes were evaluated.Results: twenty three (82.1%) fractures were type A and 5 (17.9%) were type B. The average of the cervical-shaft angle was 140° (120°-160°). 71.4% were women and 7.1% had previous osteosynthesis. The incidence was 3.54% (16/452) in cementless femoral stems and 0.8% in cemented femoral stems (12/1491). Intraoperative treatments were: cerclage wire in 18 cases (64.3%), metal mesh plus cerclage wire in one patient (3.6%) and conservative treatment in 9 patients. Twenty seven (96.4%) patients obtained good results and the average Harris Hip Score was 93 points (89-95).Conclusions: female patients, high cervical-shaft angle, hip dysplasia, cementless femoral stems and femur weakness after removing the osteosynthesis, are predisposing factors for this type of complication. For this reason, we suggest to perform a prophylactic cerclage wire when two o more of these predisposing factors are present.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".