Interval versus external fixation for the treatment of pelvic fractures: a comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This retrospective study evaluated the efficacy and safety of internal fixation (IF) in the treatment of pelvic fractures (PF). METHODS: A total of 263 unstable PF patients were treated from February 2009 to April 2015. Patients were divided into two groups according to type of fixation used to treat their PF: 136 cases received IF surgery (IF group); and, 127 cases received external fixation (EF) surgery (EF group). Postoperative follow-ups were conducted to record the clinical data, perioperative clinical indicators, Matta scores for fracture displacements, Majeed scores for hip functions and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Operation time, blood loss, the total length of the wound, postoperative fever rate, hospitalization time and complication rate for the IF group were significantly decreased in comparison with the EF group, while the ratings of pain, working and sitting ability and Matta and Majeed scores of the IF group were significantly higher than those of the EF group. CONCLUSION: IF was found to be associated with shorter operation times, less blood loss and better postoperative rehabilitation in comparison with EF, suggesting that it is an effective therapy for the treatment of unstable PF and will lead to restoration of normal pelvis functions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| 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".