MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Quantitative Comparison of Open Reduction and Internal Fixation versus the Gillies Method in the Treatment of Orbitozygomatic Complex Fractures

2005· article· en· W2026967829 on OpenAlexaff
Marcin Czerwiński, Mark Martin, Chen Lee

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Trauma and Fracture Management
Canadian institutionsMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal fixationReduction (mathematics)SurgeryFixation (population genetics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Precise repair of orbitozygomatic complex fractures is essential for proper re-establishment of facial symmetry, ocular globe position, and infraorbital nerve function. Controversy regarding the optimal treatment method remains. METHODS: To compare uniform study groups, only patients without previous craniofacial injuries or operations who had sustained moderate-energy orbitozygomatic complex fractures, based on preoperative computed tomography scans, and who were treated using the Gillies repair or open reduction and internal fixation were selected. Quantifiable end-points, including orbitozygomatic complex position, ocular globe projection, and infraorbital nerve function, were measured to objectively compare the accuracy of repair produced by the Gillies procedure and open reduction and internal fixation. Negative sequelae resulting from cutaneous access were tabulated. RESULTS: Overall, 12 patients treated using the Gillies repair and 12 treated with open reduction and internal fixation were examined. The results demonstrated that the open reduction and internal fixation technique produces superior realignment of the orbitozygomatic complex, that is, a smaller difference in the position of the orbitozygomatic complex between the injured and noninjured sides of the face. The differences in orbitozygomatic complex projection, height, and lateral position were 1.4 mm, 1.4 mm, and 1.6 mm, respectively, in the open reduction and internal fixation group and 7.5 mm, 5.6 mm, and 4.1 mm in the Gillies group. The p values were 0.0003, 0.01, and 0.06, respectively. Visible cutaneous scarring was present in four patients and lower lid shortening was seen in three patients treated using open reduction and internal fixation. CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to objectively show that the open reduction and internal fixation technique results in superior positioning of the orbitozygomatic complex in moderate-energy orbitozygomatic complex fractures compared with the Gillies repair. Although negative sequelae from surgical access were substantial, recently introduced transconjunctival and upper lid blepharoplasty incisions will minimize these drawbacks.

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)0.005
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations54
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicFacial Trauma and Fracture ManagementFrench-language works237,207