MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Staged Management of High-Energy Proximal Tibia Fractures (OTA Types 41)

2005· article· en· W2072219868 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kenneth A. Egol, Nirmal C. Tejwani, Edward L Capla, Philip L Wolinsky, Kenneth J. Koval

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Trauma · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryTibiaRadiographyExternal fixationSoft tissueHigh energyFixation (population genetics)Orthopedic surgeryTrauma centerReduction (mathematics)External fixatorRetrospective cohort studyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the use of a staged protocol involving temporary spanning external fixation and delayed formal definitive fixation in the management of high-energy proximal tibia fractures (OTA types 41) with regard to soft-tissue management, development of complications, and functional outcomes. SETTING: Two level-one trauma centers and a tertiary care orthopaedic center. PATIENTS: Fifty-three patients with 57 high-energy tibial plateau fractures. METHODS: The authors instituted a protocol of immediate placement of knee spanning external fixation with management of soft-tissue injuries for all high-energy proximal tibia fractures. Between August 1999 and May 2002, 62 consecutive patients with 67 high-energy proximal tibia fractures (OTA types 41A, B, C) underwent temporary knee spanning external fixation on the day of admission. Nine patients with 10 fractures who transferred care after initial stabilization or sustained an extraarticular fracture were excluded. The remaining 53 patients with 57 fractures underwent repair of articular fractures and meta-diaphyseal fracture repair with plates and screw constructs or conversion to a ring fixator. These patients had a mean age of 47 years (standard deviation (SD), 14). Of these 53 patients, 42 (79%) were men and 11 (21%) were women. Characteristics of the 57 fractures were: 42 Schatzker VI (74%), 12 Schatzker V (21%), 2 Schatzker IV (4%), and 1 Schatzker II (2%). There were 41 closed fractures and 16 open fractures. (One patient had bilateral fractures with 1 extremity open and 1 closed). Orthopaedic evaluation at latest follow-up included a clinical and radiographic examination and functional outcome measurement with the Western Ontario McMaster functional knee score (WOMAC). Eight patients with 8 fractures were lost to follow-up. This left 45 patients with 49 fractures with a mean follow-up of 15.7 (SD, 5.7; range, 8-40) months. RESULTS: Complications included 3 (5%) deep wound infections, 2 (4%) nonunions, and 2 patients (4%) with significant knee stiffness (<90 degrees). Nine patients (16%) underwent additional surgery after definitive skeletal stabilization related to their injury. Range of knee motion at final follow-up was 1 degrees (SD, 4) to 106 degrees (SD, 15). The mean WOMAC was 91 (SD, 55). Poor results did not correlate with demographic or injury characteristics. DISCUSSION: We had a relatively low rate of wound infection in these complex injuries (5% overall). There was only 1 wound problem in our subset of patients with closed fractures and 2 infections in those with open fractures. One downside of this technique may be residual knee stiffness. The benefits of temporizing spanning external fixation include osseous stabilization, access to soft tissues, and prevention of further articular damage. Our relatively low rates of complications in patients who sustain high-energy proximal tibia fractures and the access this technique affords in open fractures and those with compartment syndrome lead us to recommend this technique in all high-energy intra-articular and extra-articular fractures of the proximal tibia. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study supports the practice of delayed internal fixation until the soft-tissue envelope allows for definitive fixation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations336
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic TraumaSame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207