Early Weightbearing and Range of Motion Versus Non-Weightbearing and Immobilization After Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Unstable Ankle Fractures: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare early weightbearing and range of motion (ROM) to nonweightbearing and immobilization in a cast after surgical fixation of unstable ankle fractures. DESIGN: Multicentre randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Two-level one trauma centers. PATIENTS: One hundred ten patients who underwent open reduction and internal fixation of an unstable ankle fracture were recruited and randomized. INTERVENTION: One of 2 rehabilitation protocols: (1) Early weightbearing (weightbearing and ROM at 2 weeks, Early WB) or (2) Late weightbearing (nonweightbearing and cast immobilization for 6 weeks, Late WB). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome measure was time to return to work (RTW). Secondary outcome measures included: ankle ROM, SF-36 heath outcome scores, Olerud/Molander ankle function score, and rates of complications. RESULTS: There was no difference in RTW. At 6 weeks postoperatively, patients in the Early WB group had significantly improved ankle ROM (41 vs. 29, P < 0.0001); Olerud/Molander ankle function scores (45 vs. 32, P = 0.0007), and SF-36 scores on both the physical (51 vs. 42, P = 0.008) and mental (66 vs. 54, P = 0.0008) components. There were no differences with regard to wound complications or infections and no cases of fixation failure or loss of reduction. Patients in the Late WB group had higher rates of planned/performed hardware removal due to plate irritation (19% vs. 2%, P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Given the convenience for the patient, early improved functional outcome, and the lack of an increased complication rate, we recommend early postoperative weightbearing and ROM in patients with surgically treated ankle fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. 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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".