Rotational Malalignment After Intramedullary Nailing of Femoral Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Intramedullary nailing has been accepted as the treatment of choice for femoral shaft fractures. The aim of our study was to determine the incidence and implications of rotational malalignment after intramedullary nailing using computed tomography measurements. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: Patients who postoperatively visited the orthopaedic outpatient and radiology clinics. PATIENTS: Seventy-six patients, 59 men and 17 women, with a mean age of 28.4 years (15-88). INTERVENTION: Patients treated on a fracture table with an antegrade reamed AO nail (n = 46) or Grosse Kempf nail (n = 30) for a unilateral femoral shaft fracture between 1988 and 1998 were included in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Patients filled out a questionnaire concerning pain, daily activities, and sport. Oxford, Western Ontario and McMaster University osteoarthritis index, and Harris Hip and Knee Society scores were obtained. Physical exams and computed tomography measurements were established. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (28%) were found to have a rotational malalignment of 15degrees or more. There was no significant difference in rotational deformity with either the AO or Grosse Kempf nail. The incidence of malrotation was independent of the fracture level. Patients with a torsional deformity had difficulties with more demanding activities like running, sports, and climbing stairs. Patients with an external rotational malalignment (n = 12) have more functional problems than patients with an internal rotational malalignment (n = 9). Clinically determined rotation differences are not accurate (+/-20degrees) compared with the established computed tomography measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Rotational malalignment after intramedullary nailing for femoral fractures is found in 28% of the patients in this study. These patients have difficulties with more demanding activities, especially when they have an external torsional deformity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".