FUNCTIONAL OUTCOME IN COMBINED PELVIC AND ACETABULAR FRACTURES
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to evaluate functional outcome in patients with combined pelvic and acetabular fractures and to identify factors associated with outcome. One hundred and fifteen patients were identified. 63% were male; mean age was thirty-seven years; mean ISS was thirty. Three patients died from their injuries. At a mean follow-up of 3.5 years, patients exhibited profound functional deficits compared to the normal population. Those with an acetabular fracture involving the posterior wall or an associated lower extremity injury have a particularly poor prognosis. Combined pelvic and acetabular injuries are associated with high mortality and functional morbidity irrespective of treatment. To evaluate functional outcome in patients with combined pelvic and acetabular fractures and to identify factors associated with outcome. Combined pelvic and acetabular injuries are associated with high mortality and functional morbidity irrespective of treatment. These results will allow us to further investigate which injury is dictating prognosis in the combined injury – the pelvic or the acetabular fracture. One-hundred and fifteen patients with combined pelvic and acetabular injuries were identified at a level One trauma centre. 63% were male; mean age was thirty-seven years (13–88); mean ISS was thirty (16–75). Three patients died from their injuries. 16% involved bilateral pelvic fractures; 7% bilateral acetabular fractures; and for 2%, both were bilateral. 64% were Tile B and 34% were Tile C. Most acetabular fractures involved the anterior column or both column. Only 18% were treated with ORIF for both injuries. 25% had ORIF of their acetabulum and 14% had ORIF on their pelvis. Sixty-five patients completed validated functional outcome questionnaires at a mean follow-up of 3.5 (one to eleven) years. Patient function was significantly compromised with a mean MFA score of 33.8 (SD 21.8). Function was worse for all 8 SF-36 domains and the two component scores compared to the health status of the Canadian normal population (p Funding: Grant funded from AO/ASIF
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».