Incidence, Risk Factors, and Location of Articular Malreductions of the Tibial Plateau
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To define the incidence, risk factors, and anatomic location of articular malreductions in operatively treated lateral tibial plateau fractures. DESIGN: Prospective Cohort Study. SETTING: Academic Level 1 Trauma Centre. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Study subjects were patients entered into a prospective cohort study of tibial plateau fractures. INTERVENTIONS: Surgical fixation of tibial plateau fractures and postoperative computed tomographies (CTs). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was incidence of articular malreduction. Secondary outcomes included risk factors for malreduction and a descriptive analysis of malreduction location. RESULTS: Sixty-five postoperative CTs were reviewed. Twenty-one reductions (32.3%) had a step or gap more than 2 mm. The frequency of malreductions in patients undergoing submeniscal arthrotomy or fluoroscopic-assisted reduction alone was 16.6% and 41.4%, respectively (P = 0.0021). Age, body mass index, OTA/AO fracture type, operative time, use of bone graft or bone graft substitute, and use of locking plates were not predictive of malreduction. Malreductions were heavily weighted to the posterior quadrants of the lateral tibial plateau. CONCLUSIONS: When examined using cross-sectional imaging the rate of articular malreductions was high at 32.3%. Fluoroscopic reduction alone was a predictor for articular malreduction. Most malreductions were located in the posterior quadrants of the lateral plateau. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II. 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".