MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031031795 · doi:10.1097/bot.0b013e31817e49ee

Comparative Radiographic and Clinical Outcome of Two-Hole and Multi-Hole Symphyseal Plating

2008· article· en· W2031031795 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Trauma · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic and Acetabular Injuries
Canadian institutionsCanadian Association of General SurgeonsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImplantSurgerySymphysisRadiographyPubic symphysisFixation (population genetics)Implant failureMalunionRetrospective cohort studyInternal fixationComplicationPelvisNonunionPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To report on the radiographic and clinical outcome of symphyseal plating techniques, with specific attention to the incidence of implant failure, reoperation secondary to implant complication, and ability to maintain reduction of the pelvic ring. DESIGN: Retrospective chart and radiographic review. SETTING: Level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS: A total of 229 skeletally mature patients with traumatic pelvic disruptions associated with pubic symphysis diastasis requiring open reduction internal fixation. INTERVENTION: Symphyseal plating: (1) group THP, a two-hole plate; (2) group MHP, a multi-hole plate (minimum 2 holes/screws on either side of the symphysis). Patients were analyzed with respect to technique of anterior ring fixation and posterior ring injury pattern and fixation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: Retrospective review of charts and radiographs immediately after the index procedure to latest follow-up was performed. Analysis included pelvic ring injury, type of anterior and/or posterior fixation, maintenance of postoperative reduction, rate of implant failure, and need for reoperation secondary to implant complication. Additionally, logistic regression analysis was performed to detect correlation between any other variable (posterior injury pattern, presence or absence of posterior fixation, time to surgery) and failure or malunion. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software. RESULTS: A total of 92 complete data sets were available for review. There were 51 patients in group THP and 41 patients in group MHP. When comparing the results of the 2 different methods of anterior fixation (THP versus MHP), the rate of fixation failure was greater in group THP (17 of 51; 33%) than group MHP (5 of 41; 12%). This was statistically significant (P = 0.018). When evaluating the presence of a malunion as a result of these 2 treatment methods, there were more present in the THP group (29 of 51; 57%) than in the MHP group (6 of 41; 15%). Again, this was highly statistically significant (P = 0.001). Although the reoperation rate was slightly higher in the THP group (16%) as compared to the MHP group (12%), this was not statistically significant (P = 0.67). Logistic regression analysis did not reveal any other variables to correlate as a risk factor for failure or malunion in this group of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this group of patients, the two-hole symphyseal plating technique group had a higher implant failure rate and, more importantly, a significantly higher rate of pelvic malunion. On the basis of these findings, we recommend multi-hole plating of unstable pubic symphyseal disruptions.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.289 · 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