Locking compression plate versus retrograde intramedullary nail for periprosthetic supracondylar femoral fractures following total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the efficacy of locking compression plate (LCP) and retrograde intramedullary nail (RIMN) in the treatment of periprosthetic fractures after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), providing reference for surgeons to select the fixation approach. Methods Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Medline, Wanfang database, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched to identify the retrospective comparison studies (RCS) which compared the clinical outcomes of LCP and RIMN for patients with periprosthetic supracondylar fractures of the distal femur after TKA. The quality of included literatures was evaluated by Newcastle-Ottawa scale(NOS). Meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.3 software to compare the operation time, Knee society score (KSS), fracture healing time, nonunion rate, reoperation rate, and incidence of complications between the two groups. Results Ten retrospective comparison studies involving 487 patients were identified including LCP group (296 cases) and RIMN group (191 cases). The meta analysis results showed that no significant differences were found in the operation time (MD=10.89, 95%CI -9.56-31.33, P>0.05), KSS (MD=1.11, 95%CI -8.88-11.10, P=0.83), fracture healing time (MD=0.00, 95%CI-1.51-1.51, P>0.05), nonunion rate (OR=0.71, 95%CI 0.38-1.31, P>0.05), reoperation rate (OR=0.65, 95%CI 0.22-1.91, P>0.05), and complication incidence rate (OR=0.69, 95%CI 0.38-1.26, P>0.05) between these two groups. Conclusions There are no significant differences in the operation time, KSS, fracture healing time, nonunion rate, reoperation rate, and complications between LCP and RIMN groups. LCP and RIMN have similar clinical outcomes in treating periprosthetic supracondylar femoral fracture following TKA. Key words: Femur; Periprosthetic fractures; Fracture fixation, internal; Meta-analysis
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".