Comparison of Outcome of Three Different Approaches for Supracondylar Humerus Fractures in Children
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: The aim of this study is compare the outcomes among three different approaches (lateral approach, medial approach and posterior approach) for supracondylar humerus fractures in children. Study Design: Retrospective cohort study Place and Duration: The study was conducted at Orthopedics department of Ayub Teaching Hospital, Abbottabad for duration of one year from January 2020 to December 2020. Methods: There were one hundred and thirty five children had supracondylar humerus fracture were presented. Patients were aged between 3-12 years. Informed written consent was taken from authorities for detailed demographics age, sex, cause of fracture and side of fracture. Patients were categorized into three equal groups, group A had 45 patients and received lateral approach, group B had 45 patients and received medial approach and group C received posterior approach with 45 cases. Shaft Condylar Angle (SCA) and Baumann angle were used to analyze the radiological result. All children were assessed using Flynn's criteria for functional outcomes, and the results were divided into Excellent, Good, Fair and Poor. Post-operative outcomes among all the three groups were calculated and compared. SPSS 23.0 version was used to analyze complete data. Results: There were 90 (66.7%) males (30 in each group and 45 (33.3%) females (15 in each group). In group A mean age was 6.88±5.45 years, mean age in group B was 7.11±5.33 years and in group C mean age was 7.17±5.66 years. Sports 85 (62.9%) was the most common cause of fracture followed by traffic accidents 30 (22.2%) and the rest were 20 (14.8%) fall from the height. According to radiological outcomes, Mean shaft condylar Angle in group A was 41.5±6.3, in group B was 41.8±1.9 and in group C was 40.1±3.8 respectively (P>0.05). Mean Bauman angle in group A was 18.8±6.11, group B was 19.4±7.5 and in group C 20.4±5.3 with (P>0.05). According to Flynn’s criteria, excellent outcomes were observed in 33 (73.3%) in LA group, 24 (53.3%) in MA group and 22 (48.9%) in PA group, good results were observed in 11(24.4%), 19 (42.2%) and 21 (46.7%), fair outcomes in 1 (2.2%), 2 (4.4%) and 2 (4.4%). Conclusion: As a result of this research, we have concluded that the lateral technique for supracondylar fractures is superior to the medial or posterior approaches in terms of radiological and functional results. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the three groups. Keywords: Supracondylar fractures, Flynn’s criteria, Functional outcome, Open reduction
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».