Plate Fixation of Talar Neck Fractures: Preliminary Review of a New Technique in Twenty-three Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe an unreported technique of fixation for talar neck fractures. DESIGN: Retrospective review and telephone interview of patients with fractures of the talar neck (OTA 72-A1.2, 72-A1.3, 72-C2). SETTING: Level-one trauma center with six trauma surgeons. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-three patients treated with minifragment plates over a four-year period. Follow-up intervals were an average of twenty months. INTERVENTION: Talar neck fractures were stabilized with one or two 2.0 or 2.4 plates, with additional 2.0, 2.7, or 3.5 lag screws when necessary. Most fractures were approached through medial and lateral incisions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Union rates, pain, and incidence of complications. Functional outcome will be best determined by a further review with longer follow-up. RESULTS: Mini fragment plates were placed on the side with the most comminution, and all wounds and fractures healed uneventfully. Four patients underwent hardware removal. Two patients developed a mild extension malunion, but there was no evidence of varus malunion, as measured on Canale views. CONCLUSIONS: Initial review suggests that plate fixation of comminuted talar neck fractures is a successful technique, with low rates of complications compared with those discussed in the literature. A further review in a few years will allow functional assessment studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".