COMPARATIVE OUTCOMES OF ILIZAROV EXTERNAL FIXATION VERSUS DUAL PLATING IN COMPLEX TIBIAL PLATEAU FRACTURES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT OBJECTIVES This study aimed to compare radiological union, functional outcomes, and complication rates between Ilizarov external fixation and dual plating in patients with complex tibial plateau fractures. METHODOLOGY This prospective quasi-experimental study was conducted at the Department of Orthopedic Surgery at Nishtar Hospital, Multan. Sixty patients aged 20-70 years with isolated closed Schatzker type V or VI tibial plateau fractures were enrolled using non-probability purposive sampling and allocated into two groups: Ilizarov fixation (n=30) and dual plating (n=30). Functional outcomes were assessed using the Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, and radiological union was evaluated on biplanar radiographs and classified according to the Hammer criteria. Complications, including infection, were recorded. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 24, with chi-square and independent t-tests applied; p-values ≤0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTSThe dual plating group demonstrated significantly higher Lysholm scores compared to the Ilizarov group (86.0 ± 8.44 vs 54.26 ± 8.73; p < 0.001). Radiological union was achieved more frequently in the dual plating group (96.7%) than in the Ilizarov group (73.3%) (p=0.01). Infection rates were significantly higher in the Ilizarov group (20.0% vs 3.3%; p=0.044). Functional outcome categories also favored dual plating (p=0.037).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".