Complications of Rigid Intramedullary Rodding of Femoral Shaft Fractures in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intramedullary rodding of femoral shaft fractures has been frequently performed in adults, but until recently rarely in children. It was the purpose of this study to investigate the experience with this treatment method at a pediatric trauma center. METHODS: From 1987 to 1998, 54 children were treated for traumatic femoral fractures with intramedullary rods at a major pediatric trauma center. The average age was 15 years 3 months, ranging between 11 years 4 months and 17 years 11 months. The average follow-up was 5 years 3 months, ranging from 20 months to 10 years 1 month. RESULTS: All of the fractures occurred secondary to trauma and the most common anatomic fracture site was the femoral midshaft. Complications encountered included 8 instances of minor limb length discrepancy, 11 instances of discomfort because of rod prominence, 1 case of avascular necrosis of the femoral head, 2 instances of heterotopic ossification over the rod tip, 1 broken rod, and 3 cases that demonstrated decreased external rotation of the affected limb. One child developed osteomyelitis after intramedullary rodding for a fracture previously treated with external fixation. There were no cases of surgically induced nonunion or malunion and only one delayed union secondary to infection. CONCLUSION: Results of this series demonstrate intramedullary rodding to be an effective treatment modality for femoral fractures in skeletally mature children. In children with open femoral physes, rigid rodding should be avoided because of the small but serious occurrence of avascular necrosis of the femoral head. Intramedullary rodding is not recommended in children initially treated with external fixation because of the increased risk of infection.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".