Minimally Invasive Hip Fracture Surgery: Are Outcomes Better?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Intertrochanteric hip fractures have high morbidity and mortality rates. The purpose of this study was to determine if minimally invasive plating, nailing, or external fixation operations lead to improved outcomes for intertrochanteric hip fractures compared with standard insertion of a sliding hip screw (SHS). DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of MEDLINE (1996 to June 2007) and EMBASE (1980 to June 2007) was performed. Results were limited to English language studies. References from eligible studies were reviewed to identify additional studies. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were selected for review based on the following criteria: prospective or retrospective studies comparing minimally invasive plating, nailing, or external fixation to standard insertion of an SHS, exclusion of intracapsular and subtrochanteric hip fractures, and report of outcome data by treatment group to allow for comparison. DATA EXTRACTION: The following outcomes were extracted from eligible studies: operative time, operative blood loss, intraoperative complications, postoperative drop in hemoglobin, postoperative pain, postoperative medical or fracture complications, wound complications, length of hospital stay, and post-fracture function. DATA SYNTHESIS: Sufficient data existed among 14 randomized controlled trials to perform a meta-analysis and calculate pooled relative risks for failure of fixation, blood transfusion, and mortality. Relative risks were calculated with 95% confidence intervals using a random-effects model, and an analysis of heterogeneity between pooled studies was conducted. Other outcome measures that were extracted from 17 comparative studies are reported as a systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: Although a significant heterogeneity exists between pooled studies, minimally invasive hip fracture plating, nailing, or external fixation was associated with a decrease in transfusion rate [relative risk of 0.63 as compared to standard SHS (95% confidence interval 0.41 to 0.96; I(2) = 83.6%)]. There was no significant difference for the other comparisons, including mortality between minimally invasive plating, nailing, or external fixation and standard insertion of an SHS.
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 | 0.018 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".