MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predictors of Reoperation Following Operative Management of Fractures of the Tibial Shaft

2003· article· en· W1966296500 on OpenAlexaff
Mohit Bhandari, Paul Tornetta, Sheila Sprague, Soheil Najibi, Brad Petrisor, Lauren E. Griffith, Gordon Guyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Trauma · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalSurgeryObservational studyRelative riskRetrospective cohort studyInternal fixationTrauma centerRadiographyPopulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Accurate prediction of likelihood of reoperation in patients with tibial shaft fractures would facilitate optimal management. Previous studies were limited by small sample sizes and noncomprehensive examination of possible risk factors. OBJECTIVE: We conducted an observational study to determine which prognostic factors were associated with an increased risk of reoperation following operative treatment in a heterogeneous population of patients with tibial shaft fractures. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Level 1 trauma center. METHODS: We identified 200 patients with tibial shaft fractures from two university-affiliated centers. Two reviewers independently abstracted data regarding 20 possible prognostic variables, reviewed preoperative and postoperative radiographs, and documented reoperations (defined as any surgical procedure </=1 year after the initial surgery that was aimed specifically at achieving bony union of the fracture, including bone grafts, implant exchanges, or débridement for infections). We chose a Cox proportion hazards model to conduct a survival analysis for time to reoperation and constructed a multivariable model to estimate the relative risk of reoperation and associated 95%confidence interval (CI) for each predictor variable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to reoperation following the initial surgery. RESULTS: Complete follow-up information was available for 192 of 200 (96%) patients. Three variables predicted reoperation: the presence of an open fracture wound (relative risk 4.32, 95% CI 1.76 to 11.26), lack of cortical continuity between the fracture ends following fixation (relative risk 8.33, 95% CI 3.03 to 25.0), and the presence of a transverse fracture (relative risk 20.0, 95% CI 4.34 to 142.86). CONCLUSIONS: We identified a set of three simple prognostic variables (open fracture, transverse fracture, and postoperative fracture gap) that can assist surgeons in predicting reoperation following operative treatment of tibial shaft fractures.

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)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations244
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic TraumaSame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207