Safety and efficacy of the extended iliofemoral approach in the treatment of complex fractures of the acetabulum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There remains uncertainty about the most effective surgical approach in the treatment of complex fractures of the acetabulum. We have reviewed the experience of a single surgeon using the extended iliofemoral approach, as described by Letournel.A review of the database of such fractures identified 106 patients operated on using this approach with a minimum follow-up of two years. All data were collected prospectively. The fractures involved both columns in 64 (60%). Operation was undertaken in less than 21 days after injury in 71 patients (67%) and in 35 (33%) the procedure was carried out later than this. The reduction of the fracture was measured on plain radiographs taken after operation and defined as anatomical (0 to 1 mm of displacement); imperfect (2 to 3 mm) or poor (> 3 mm). The functional outcome was measured by the modified Merle d'Aubigné and Postel score. The mean follow-up was for 6.3 years (2 to 17).All patients achieved union of the fractures. The reduction was graded as anatomical in 76 (72%) of the patients, imperfect in 23 (22%), and poor in six (6%). The mean Merle d'Aubigné and Postel score was 15 (5 to 18) with 68 patients (64%) showing good or excellent and 38 (36%) fair or poor results. Function correlated significantly with the accuracy of the reduction (p < 0.009). Significant heterotopic ossification developed in 32 patients (30%) and was associated with a worse mean Merle d'Aubigné and Postel score of 13.7. The extended iliofemoral approach can be performed safely in selected complex acetabular fractures with an acceptable clinical outcome and rate of complications. Effective prophylaxis against heterotopic ossification should be strongly considered.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".