104 – FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES FOLLOWING INTRAMEDULLARY NAILING OF TROCHANTERIC HIP FRACTURES: A PILOT MULTICENTRE, RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The popularity of intramedullary nails (IMN) for trochanteric hip fractures has grown substantially with little supportive evidence that IMN are superior to conventional sliding hip screws (SHS). We aimed to assess the impact of SHS or IMN intramedullary nailing on functional outcomes and rates of re-operation in elderly patients with fractures. Method: We conducted a multi-center, pilot randomized trial including three clinical sites across Sweden, Denmark, and Canada. We randomized 85 elderly patients with stable and unstable trochanteric hip fractures to either SHS or an IMN. The primary outcome, revision surgery, was independently adjudicated at one year. Secondary functional outcomes included the Parker Mobility Score (PMS), the Merle D’Aubigne Score, the Short Form-12 (SF-12) and the Euroquol-5D. Results: Eighty five patients were enrolled. Fifteen patients died prior to the one year follow up. Across treatment groups, patients did not differ in age, gender and fracture type. The overall revision risk was 11.6% (8/69) and did not differ significantly between groups (IMN: 5; SHS: 3). Patients treated with IMN had significantly higher Merle D’Aubigne function subscores at 6 (p=0.01) and 12 months (p=0.05). Gamma3 nails approached significantly higher scores in the Parker mobility score at 6 (p=0.08) and 12 months (p=0.056). Non-significant differences were identified in the SF-12 and Euroquol-5D quality of life measures; however, in both scores, the Gamma3 nailed trended to higher scores than the sliding hip screw. Conclusion: Our findings of early functional gains without increased risk of revision surgery support the increased popularity of IMN for the management of trochanteric hip fractures in elderly patients.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".