Posterior Fracture Dislocation of the Ankle: Technique and Clinical Experience Using a Posteromedial Surgical Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to revisit the posteromedial surgical approach to the ankle and report the clinical outcomes of this technique in a cohort of 17 patients. DESIGN: Retrospective. SETTING: Level I trauma center. PATIENTS: Seventeen patients between 1990 and 2006 were treated using a posteromedial surgical approach to the ankle. Thirteen presented with a posterior ankle fracture dislocation and 4 with an ankle fracture without dislocation producing a large posterior malleolar fragment. There were 6 males and 11 females, from 23 to 80 years of age (mean 45.2 years). INTERVENTION: All but 2 patients underwent open reduction and internal fixation of the posterior malleolar fracture using a single posteromedial approach. A combined surgical approach (posteromedial and posterolateral) to the ankle was used in 2 cases. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The Foot and Ankle Outcomes Questionnaire was used to evaluate postoperative ankle pain, function, stiffness and swelling, and giving way. Posttraumatic osteoarthritis was assessed using an adapted 4-point radiographic grading system. RESULTS: Follow-up data on 12 patients were obtained at a mean interval of 9.4 years. There were no wound complications. The average global foot and ankle score was 87 points (range 69-100). The degree of arthrosis was grades 0 in 3 ankles, I in 1 ankle, II in 5 ankles, and III in 3 ankles. CONCLUSIONS: The posteromedial approach offers an effective technique for fracture reduction and buttress plate fixation of large posterior malleolar fragments. Good short- and mid-term clinical results should be expected.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".