Comparison of Outcomes and Complications of Isolated Acetabular Fractures and Acetabular Fractures With Associated Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare patients with acetabular fractures that are isolated (acetabular fracture alone) and acetabular fracture presenting with additional nonacetabular injury using functional outcomes, complications, and readmissions. DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Level 1 Trauma Center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred fifteen patients underwent open surgical treatment for acetabular fracture between 2003 and 2012 with age ≥18 years and minimum 1-year follow-up inclusive of functional scores and complications. INTERVENTION: Surgical treatment of acetabular fracture. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Postoperative functional outcomes at 1 year as assessed with the Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey Questionnaire and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), postoperative complications including readmissions. RESULTS: Acetabular fractures patients with associated nonacetabular injuries exhibited a longer length of hospital stay (P < 0.0001) and higher readmission rate within 90 days (P = 0.012) compared with patients in the isolated injury group. Acetabular fracture with either chest or abdominal injury had the longest average hospital stay (19.2 and 19.1 days, respectively). Functional scores between 2 groups were comparable at 1-year follow-up, except acetabular fractures with pelvic ring injury, which had a significantly lower physical component score of SF-36 (P = 0.007) compared with the isolated group. CONCLUSIONS: Acetabular fractures with associated nonacetabular injuries have longer hospital stays, higher complications, and readmissions. Specifically, patients with associated truncal injury had worse clinical outcome and longer hospital stays. These conclusions should be taken into account when counseling patients with acetabular fractures, as additional injuries will greatly affect the course of treatment and the outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic level III. 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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".