Long-term Comparison of Retrograde and Antegrade Femoral Nailing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antegrade or retrograde nailing for femoral shaft fractures remains the gold standard, but long-term data on functional outcomes after intramedullary nailing are lacking. In a retrospective review of prospectively collected patient registry data, patients with an isolated femoral shaft fracture treated with antegrade or retrograde femoral nailing from 1997 to 2012 were interviewed and their medical records analyzed. Functional reported outcome data were obtained via the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at 5 to 17 years postoperatively. Antegrade and retrograde intramedullary nailing of diaphyseal femur shaft fractures demonstrated a mean WOMAC of 23.5%±23.6% (range, 0%-82.3%) and 29.7%±24.0% (range, 0%-88%), respectively (P=.23). The mean VAS scores of the antegrade vs retrograde intramedullary nailing groups were 2.5±2.6 (range, 0-8) and 3.4±2.8 (range, 0-10), respectively (P=.11). Location of pain differed between groups as well, with the antegrade group noting an increased rate of hip pain (25.6% vs 7.0%, P=.01), but a nonsignificant difference in the rate of thigh pain (27.9% vs 15.5%, P=.15) and knee pain (18.6% vs 26.7%, P=.49) as compared with the retrograde group. Diaphyseal femur fractures are successfully treated with either antegrade or retrograde intramedullary nails without significantly differing long-term functional outcomes, which correlates with other reported findings in the literature at short-term follow-up. [Orthopedics. 2020;43(4):e278-e282.].
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.
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 it