Intramedullary Nailing of the Femoral Shaft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a prospective, randomized study on 84 consecutive patients with 88 acute, traumatic femoral shaft fractures using 32 Grosse-Kempf nails, 29 Russell-Taylor nails, and 27 Synthes nails. Although total operative times and proximal and distal locking times were similar for the three groups, the procedure was faster with the Grosse-Kempf nail. Three proximal fractures could not be locked with the Synthes nail. At first follow-up, we found no significant difference in terms of pain, limp, range of motion, or time to union; however, we removed fewer Synthes nails to resolve patient complaints of pain. Three delayed unions were attributed to fracture distraction. We conclude that all three nails are suitable for the treatment of almost all femoral shaft fractures. A careful analysis of intraoperative technique and instrumentation indicates that all three nails can be used safely and easily once experience is gained. Clinical outcome is similar regardless of the nail chosen.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".