Comparison of Two Types of Proximal Femoral Nails in the Treatment of Intertrochanteric Femur Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hip nailing is frequently used to treat unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures (ITF) in elderly patients. In this retrospective study, we compared the functional and radiological results, and the complications, of patients treated using proximal femoral nails (PFN) with an integrated, interlocking, compression lag screw, or two separate lag screws, which allow linear compression at the fracture site. METHODS: A total of one hundred and eighteen patients were operated on for AO/OTA 31-A2 ITF between May 2010 and April 2012, and eighty-two of these patients, for whom sufficient follow-up data and documentation were available, were included into the study. PFNs with interlocking, integrated lag screws (Group I) were used in forty-four patients, and PFNs with two separate lag screws (Group II) in thirty-eight. Outcome parameters were the extent of varus collapse and leg length discrepancy on radiographs, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and Harris hip scores (HHS) as functional results. RESULTS: Mean follow-up duration was 20 months (range, 12-36 months); fractures healed in all patients. Mean varus collapse values were 2.03±5.68° and 5.21±5.27° (p=0.01), Harris hip scores 73.2±11.65 and 74.72±11.15 (p=0.54), and WOMAC scores 70.78±11.41 and 71.78±11.19 (p=0.69) in Groups I and II, respectively. No difference was detected between the groups in terms of outcome parameters or complication rate. CONCLUSION: In the treatment of ITF, PFNs with an integrated, interlocking, compression lag screw, or two separate lag screws did not differ in terms of functional and radiological results or complication rate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".