Surgical Treatment of Refractory Tibial Stress Fractures in Elite Dancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment of tibial stress fractures in elite dancers is centered on rest and activity modification. Surgical intervention in refractory cases has important implications affecting the dancers' careers. HYPOTHESIS: Refractory tibial stress fractures in dancers can be treated successfully with drilling and bone grafting or intramedullary nailing. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: Between 1992 and 2006, 1757 dancers were evaluated at a dance medicine clinic; 24 dancers (1.4%) had 31 tibial stress fractures. Of that subset, 7 (29.2%) elite dancers with 8 tibial stress fractures were treated operatively with either intramedullary nailing or drilling and bone grafting. Six of the patients were followed up closely until they were able to return to dance. One patient was available only for follow-up phone interview. Data concerning their preoperative treatment regimens, operative procedures, clinical union, radiographic union, and time until return to dance were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: The mean age of the surgical patients at the time of stress fracture was 22.6 years. The mean duration of preoperative symptoms before surgical intervention was 25.8 months. Four of the dancers were male and 3 were female. All had failed nonoperative treatment regimens. Five patients (5 tibias) underwent drilling and bone grafting of the lesion, and 2 patients (3 tibias) with completed fractures or multiple refractory stress fractures underwent intramedullary nailing. Clinical union was achieved at a mean of 6 weeks and radiographic union at 5.1 months. Return to full dance activity was at an average of 6.5 months postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Surgical intervention for tibial stress fractures in dancers who have not responded to nonoperative management allowed for resolution of symptoms and return to dancing with minimal morbidity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".