Functional Outcome of Ipsilateral Intertrochanteric and Femoral Shaft Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the functional outcome of patients with ipsilateral intertrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures treated with a reconstruction nail versus a sliding hip screw and retrograde nail. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Two level 1 trauma centers. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-six patients with ipsilateral intertrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures treated between 1993 and 2003 with a reconstruction nail (n=13) or with a sliding hip screw and retrograde nail (n=13). INTERVENTION: Internal fixation with a reconstruction nail or a sliding hip screw and retrograde nail. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Functional outcome was measured using the Short Form-36 (SF-36), Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment (SMFA), and Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS). RESULTS: The average time to follow-up was 49.6 months. Functional outcome was significantly better in the sliding hip screw with retrograde nail group for the role emotional (P=0.001) and mental component scores (P=0.016) of the SF-36. This group also scored better on the LEFS, although not reaching statistical significance (P=0.099). CONCLUSIONS: For most outcome measures, no significant differences in functional outcome scores were observed between the 2 treatment groups. The results of this study suggest the need for a randomized controlled trial with a larger sample size to more definitively compare the 2 fixation constructs.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".