MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rotational Malalignment of the Tibia Following Reamed Intramedullary Nail Fixation

2004· article· en· W2009530594 on OpenAlexaff
Shannon Puloski, C. Romano, Richard Buckley, J. Powell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Trauma · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntramedullary rodTibiaDeformityRadiographyNuclear medicineTomographyRepeatabilityInternal fixationSurgeryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence and severity of tibial malrotation following reamed intramedullary nail fixation as measured by computerized tomography and to determine the repeatability of computed tomography measurement in the assessment of rotational malreduction. DESIGN: Prospective cohort. SETTINGS: Level 1 trauma center. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five consecutive patients with 25 tibial shaft fractures. INTERVENTION: All patients were treated with reamed intramedullary nailing. Appropriate radiographs and a postoperative lower extremity computed tomography scan were obtained for each patient who consented to the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Rotational alignment of affected tibia as compared to a version of the normal contralateral limb. Malrotation was defined as an internal/external rotation deformity greater than 10degrees. RESULTS: Malrotation, comparing the fractured limb to normal limb, was determined using a similar measurement method previously described in the literature. Two patients declined inclusion, and in one case, the computed tomography was not acceptable for analysis. Malrotation, comparing the fractured limb to the normal limb, was determined using the measurements from axial computed tomography images. Results revealed a mean absolute rotational difference of 6.7degrees (SD +/-6.3degrees). Rotational malreduction ranged from 15degrees of internal rotation to 22degrees of external rotation. Five of the 22 tibia (22%) were malrotated greater than 10degrees. A larger degree of deformity was seen with certain injury patterns. The intraobserver and interobserver repeatability testing revealed a mean absolute difference between paired malrotation calculations of 3.4degrees and 3.9degrees, respectively, and a repeatability coefficient of 8degrees for both. CONCLUSION: Computed tomography measurement is a repeatable method of assessing tibial torsion and in this study revealed a significantly higher incidence of rotational malreduction than that previously reported in the literature.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations111
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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