MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916248435 · doi:10.33545/orthor.2017.v1.i1a.5

A prospective study of operative results of intra-articular fractures of proximal tibia

2017· article· en· W2916248435 on OpenAlexaff
Mohit Jain, Bhavna Singla, Kinjal Mavani

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryTibial plateau fractureInternal fixationCondyleFixation (population genetics)Reduction (mathematics)Articular surfaceTibiaKnee JointRange of motionOsteoarthritisOrthodontics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Proximal tibial fracture is a common injury, with some of these fractures being caused by a strong impact such as a traffic accident and others being caused by the relatively weak impact of a fall in elderly people. Such fractures are frequently intraarticular and comminuted and it is likely that secondary osteoarthritis will occur due to residual malalignment of the lower extremity or irregularity of the articular surface, especially in patients with comminuted intraarticular fractures. To preserve normal knee function, surgeon must strive to maintain joint congruity, preserve normal mechanical axis, ensure joint stability and restore a full range of motion. Methods: We have studied 50 cases of fractures of upper end tibia with intraarticular extension, treated at our tertiary care institute with different modalities of fixation during the period of Jan 2017 to May 2017. We used Schatzker type I – VI classification. Surgical techniques used were external fixation, open reduction and internal fixation, ligament injury repair with condylar fracture and arthroscopically assisted reduction and fixation of tibial plateau. Results: We used knee society scores (max. 350) used for final follow up at 1 year. Functional was Excellent in 82% (41), good in 6% (3), Fair in 12% (6) patients. In type I fracture 3 patients had excellent result, 1 patient had fair result. In type II/III/IV fracture all patients having excellent result. In type V fracture patients treated with double plate (2) had excellent result and single plate (15), 12 had excellent, 2 patients had good and 1 had fair result. 1 patient with preexisting osteoarthritis treated with hybrid fixator complicated by infection had fair result. 1 patient treated with C.C. (Cannulated Cancellous) screw had fair result. In type VI fracture, 6 patients treated with plate had excellent result. Out of 4 patients treated with hybrid fixator 3 had excellent result and 1 had good result. One patient had excellent and one had fair result treated with external fixator. Conclusion: Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is the gold standard treatment for these fractures. Complex articular fractures can be treated by ring external fixators and minimally-invasive osteosynthesis (EFMO) or by ORIF. EFMO can be related to suboptimal articular reduction; however, outcome analysis shows results that are equal to, or even superior to, ORIF. The ORIF strategy should also include the optimal reduction of the articular surface.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.401 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Journal of Clinical OrthopaedicsSame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207