Mortality Rate of Geriatric Acetabular Fractures Is High Compared With Hip Fractures. A Matched Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Compare acute complication and mortality rates of geriatric patients with acetabular fractures (AFs) matched to hip fractures (HFs). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project. PATIENTS: Using Current Procedural Terminology codes, the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project registry was used to identify all patients ≥60 years from 2011 to 2016 treated for AFs undergoing open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and HFs (undergoing ORIF, hemiarthroplasty, or cephalomedullary nail). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Patient characteristics, comorbidities, functional status, acute complications, and mortality rates were recorded. Patients were matched 1:5 (AF:HF). Chi-square, Fisher exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare groups, and multivariable logistic regression was used to compare the risk of complications or death while adjusting for relevant covariates. RESULTS: A total of 303 AF patients (age: 78.2 ± 9.2 years/59.7% females/27.1% wall, 28.4% one column and 45.2% 2 columns ORIF) were matched to 1511 HF patients (age: 78.3 ± 9.1 years/60.2% females/37.2% hemiarthroplasty, 16.3% ORIF and 47.4% cephalomedullary nail). Length of stay (8.4 ± 7.1 vs. 6.4 ± 5.9 days) and time to surgery [(TS) 2.3 ± 1.8 versus 1.2 ± 1.4 days] were longer in the AF group (P < 0.01). Unadjusted mortality rates were nonsignificantly higher for AFs versus HFs (6.6% vs. 4.6%, P = 0.14). After covariable adjustment, the risk of mortality was significantly higher for AFs versus HFs (odds ratio: 1.89, 95% confidence interval: 1.07-3.35). CONCLUSION: Geriatric AFs pose a significantly higher adjusted mortality risk when compared with HF patients. Strategies to mitigate risk factors in this population are warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".