Distal Nail Target and Alignment of Distal Tibia Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the relationship between the distal nail target and postoperative alignment for distal tibia fractures treated with intramedullary nailing. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A single level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty distal tibia fractures treated with intramedullary nailing over a 10-year period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Malalignment >5 degrees. RESULTS: Thirty-eight cases (29.2%) of malalignment >5 degrees included valgus (19 cases, 14.6%), procurvatum (13 cases, 10.0%), recurvatum (1 case, 0.8%), and combined valgus with procurvatum (5 cases, 3.8%). Medially directed nails demonstrated relative valgus (mean lateral distal tibia angle 86.4 vs. 89.4 degrees, P < 0.01) and more frequent coronal malalignment (24 of 78, 30.8% vs. 0 of 52, 0%, P < 0.01). Anteriorly directed nails demonstrated relative procurvatum (mean anterior distal tibia angle 82.8 vs. 80.9 degrees, P < 0.01) and more frequent sagittal malalignment (15 of 78, 19.2% vs. 3 of 52, 5.8%, P = 0.03). Malalignment was less common for nails targeting the central or slightly posterolateral plafond (0 of 30, 0% vs. 38 of 100, 38%), P < 0.01. Multivariate analysis demonstrated the distal nail target (P = 0.03), fracture within 5 cm of the plafond (P = 0.01), as well as night and weekend surgery (P = 0.03) were all independently associated with malalignment. CONCLUSIONS: Alignment of distal tibia fractures is sensitive to both injury and treatment factors. Nails should be targeted centrally or slightly posterolaterally to minimize malalignment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. 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".