Nonbridging external fixation for fractures of the distal radius.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of using standard components from the small AO external fixator set to support fractures of the distal radius with a construct incorporating distal fixation in the periarticular radius fragment that would allow for primary mobilization of the wrist joint during fracture healing. METHODS: In a prospective pilot study of a nonbridging external fixator in early 2001, 6 consecutive cases of fracture in the distal radius presenting at a tertiary care centre, the Hamilton General Division of Hamilton Health Sciences, were compared with 6 historical controls treated with a standard bridging construct immobilizing the wrist. Both groups were or had been treated with closed reduction and external fixation of the distal radius under fluoroscopic control. Fracture alignment was measured on radiographs after healing and removal of the fixation devices; additional (secondary) outcome measures were pin-tract sepsis and implant loosening (treatment failure). RESULTS: Compared radiographically with controls, alignments after fracture healing were improved (and virtually anatomic) with use of the nonbridging external fixator. The incidence of pin-tract sepsis was similar in the 2 groups, neither of which included any treatment failures. CONCLUSIONS: Nonbridging external fixation of comminuted distal radius fractures can be accomplished safely and effectively. The results of this pilot study suggest that improved radiographic alignment may be achieved with this technique.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".