A Comparison of Pediatric Forearm Fracture Reduction Between Conscious Sedation and General Anesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of children whose fractures were manipulated with nitrous oxide with those fractures manipulated under a general anesthetic. DESIGN: We undertook a retrospective analysis of all children who presented to the emergency department with an angulated or displaced nonphyseal forearm fracture requiring manipulation over a 6-month period. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-eight forearm fractures were manipulated using conscious sedation, whereas 27 were manipulated in the operating theatre under general anesthesia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The quality of reduction, the Cast Index, Padding Index, and Canterbury Index were similar between the 2 groups. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the need for remanipulation in the nitrous oxide group (9) compared with the need for remanipulation in the theatre group (3). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a higher failure, manipulation of fractures in the emergency department using conscious sedation can achieve an adequate reduction and a high quality of cast. Failures were due to inherently more unstable fracture personalities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".