MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Trochanteric versus Piriformis Entry Portal for the Treatment of Femoral Shaft Fractures

2006· article· en· W2165785601 on OpenAlexaff
William M. Ricci, John Schwappach, Michael C. Tucker, Kevin Coupe, Angel Brandt, Roy Sanders, Ross Leighton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Trauma · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryGreater trochanterLesser TrochanterFluoroscopyTrochanterProspective cohort studyFemurOsteoporosisFemoral neckInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare results of femoral shaft fracture treatment with nailing through the greater trochanter to nailing through the piriformis fossa with nails specifically designed for each starting point. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Four level 1 trauma centers. PATIENTS: One-hundred and eight patients treated by 1 of 4 surgeons for a femoral shaft or subtrochanteric fracture with antegrade nailing between January 2001 and April 2003 were included. Four patients who expired early in the postoperative period and 13 with insufficient follow-up were excluded from analysis. INTERVENTION: Patients were treated with either nailing through a greater trochanter starting point with the Trigen TAN nail (GT group) (n = 38) or through a piriformis fossa starting point with the Trigen FAN nail (PF group) (n = 53). OUTCOME MEASURES: Operative time, fluoroscopy time, fracture alignment, fracture healing, complications, and functional outcome based on the lower-extremity measure (LEM). RESULTS: Thirty-seven of the 38 fractures from the GT group and 52 of the 53 fractures from the PF group healed after the index procedure. One patient from the GT group had external rotation malalignment of 12 degrees. There were no other malalignments or iatrogenic fracture comminution. There were 2 infectious complications, 1 from each group. The average operative time was 75 minutes for piriformis insertion using the FAN nail and 62 minutes for trochanteric insertion using the TAN nail (P = 0.08). The average fluoroscopy time was 61% greater for the PF group (153 seconds) than for the GT group (95 seconds) (P < 0.05). These differences were magnified in patients who were obese (body mass index > 30) where the operative time was 30% greater (P < 0.05) and the fluoroscopy time was 73% higher in the PF group (P < 0.02). Patients from both groups had a similar initial decline and subsequent improvement in function over time (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A femoral nail specially designed for trochanteric insertion resulted in equally high union rates, equally low complication rates, and functional results similar to conventional antegrade femoral nailing through the piriformis fossa. The greater trochanter entry portal coupled with an appropriately designed nail represents a rational alternative for antegrade femoral nailing with the benefit of decreased fluoroscopy time and decreased operative time in patients who are obese.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations127
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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