Mapping recovery in simple and complex tibial plateau fracture fixation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims The aim of this study was to determine the trajectory of recovery following fixation of tibial plateau fractures up to five-year follow-up, including simple (Schatzker I-IV) versus complex (Schatzker V-VI) fractures. Patients and Methods Patients undergoing open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for tibial plateau fractures were enrolled into a prospective database. Functional outcome, using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary (SF-36 PCS), was collected at baseline, six months, one year, and five years. The trajectory of recovery for complex fractures (Schatzker V and VI) was compared with simple fractures (Schatzker I to IV). Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated between timepoints. In all, 182 patients were enrolled: 136 (74.7%) in simple and 46 (25.3%) in complex. There were 103 female patients and 79 male patients with a mean age of 45.8 years (15 to 86). Results Mean SF-36 PCS improved significantly in both groups from six to 12 months (p < 0.001) and one to five years (simple, p = 0.008; complex, p = 0.007). In both groups, the baseline scores were not reached at five years. The SF-36 PCS was significantly higher in the simple group compared with the complex group at both six months (p = 0.007) and 12 months (p = 0.01), but not at five years (p = 0.17). Between each timepoint, approximately 50% or more of the patients in each group achieved an MCID in their score change, indicating a significant clinical change in condition. The complex group had a much larger drop off in the first six months, with comparable proportions achieving MCID at the subsequent time intervals. Conclusion Tibial plateau fracture recovery was characterized overall by an initial decline in functional outcome from baseline, followed by a steep improvement from six to 12 months, and ongoing recovery up to five years. In simple patterns, patients tended to achieve a higher functional score by six months compared with the complex patterns. However, comparable functional scores between the groups achieved only at the five-year point suggest later recovery in the complex group. Function does not improve to baseline by five years in either group. This information is useful in counselling patients about the course of prospective recovery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1009–1014.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".