A Multicenter Randomized Control Trial Comparing a Novel Intramedullary Device (InterTAN) Versus Conventional Treatment (Sliding Hip Screw) of Geriatric Hip Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes in elderly patients with intertrochanteric hip fractures treated with either the sliding hip screw (SHS) or InterTAN intramedullary device (IT). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical trial. SETTING: Five level 1 trauma centers. PATIENTS: Two hundred forty-nine patients 55 years of age or older with AO/OTA 31A1 (43) and OA/OTA 31A2 (206) fractures were prospectively enrolled and followed for 12 months. INTERVENTION: Computer generated randomization to either IT (n = 123) or SHS (n = 126). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and the Timed Up and Go test (TUG) were used to measure function and motor performance. Secondary outcome measures included femoral shortening, complications, and mortality. RESULTS: Demographics, comorbidities, preinjury FIM scores and TUG scores were similar between groups. Patients (17.2%) who received an IT had limb shortening greater than 2 cm compared with 42.9% who received an SHS (P < 0.001). To determine the importance of preinjury function and fracture stability, we analyzed the subgroup of patients with the ability to walk 150 m independently preinjury and an OA/OTA 31A-2 fracture (n = 70). In this subgroup, patients treated with SHS had greater shortening and demonstrated poorer FIM and TUG scores compared with patients treated with an IT. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, most patients with intertrochanteric femur fractures can expect similar functional results whether treated with an intramedullary or extramedullary device. However, active, functional patients have an improved outcome when the InterTAN is used to treat their unstable intertrochanteric fracture. 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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".