Secondary femur fracture following treatment with anterograde nailing: the state of the art.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cephalomedullary nailing (CMN) currently represents the best surgical technique for the treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures. Although the success of CMN in terms of functional recovery and fracture healing, in clinical practice there are many complications. Later femur fracture following treatment of trochanteric fracture with CMN is not a very frequent complication but, when it occurs, its treatment is the most complex, because of the increase of peri-operative mortality. There are studies in literature, which have demonstrated that the incidence of this complication is about 0.5-3%. Diagnosis and classification are made with standard radiographs, using the AO classification and the modified Vancouver classification. In the actual literature, to determinate the predisposing factor to the secondary fractures, the authors focused their attention on patient-related and surgical related risk factors. The treatment is variable and it depends on the type and characteristics of fracture and device. Outcomes analyzed in literature were mortality and bone healing. The aim of this manuscript is to provide an overview of this topic and to describe the state of the art of the secondary fracture after surgical treatment with intramedullary nailing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".