Comparative evaluation of minimally invasive ‘tibial tuberoplasty’ surgical technique versus conventional open surgery for Schatzker II–III tibial plateau fractures: design of a multicentre, randomised, controlled and blinded trial (TUBERIMPACT study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Fractures of the tibial plateau are in constant progression. They affect an elderly population suffering from a number of comorbidities, but also a young population increasingly practicing high-risk sports. The conventional open surgical technique used for tibial plateau fractures has several pitfalls: bone and skin devascularisation, increased risks of infection and functional rehabilitation difficulties. Since 2011, Poitiers University Hospital is offering to its patients a new minimally invasive technique for the reduction and stabilisation of tibial plateau fractures, named 'tibial tuberoplasty'. This technique involves expansion of the tibial plateau through inflation using a kyphoplasty balloon, filling of the fracture cavity with cement and percutaneous screw fixation. We designed a study to evaluate the quality of fracture reduction offered by percutaneous tuberoplasty versus conventional open surgery for tibial plateau fracture and its impact on clinical outcome. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing two surgical techniques in the treatment of tibial plateau fractures. 140 patients with a Schatzker II or III tibial plateau fracture will be recruited in France. They will be randomised either in tibial tuberoplasty arm or in conventional surgery arm. The primary outcome is the postoperative radiological step-off reduction blindly measured on CT scan (within 48 hours post-op). Additional outcomes include other radiological endpoints, pain, functional abilities, quality of life assessment and health-economic endpoints. Outcomes assessment will be performed at baseline (before surgery), at day 0 (surgery), at 2, 21, 45 days, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months postsurgery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the ethics committee Ile-De-France X and will be conducted in accordance with current Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines, Declaration of Helsinki and standard operating procedures. The results will be disseminated through presentation at scientific conferences and publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrial.gov:NCT03444779.
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 | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".