Static and Dynamic External Fixation are Equally Effective for Unstable Elbow Fracture-Dislocations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes of static versus dynamic external fixation for elbow fracture-dislocations with persistent instability after surgical management. DESIGN: Comparative, retrospective review. SETTING: Two tertiary referral upper-extremity centers. PATIENTS: Twenty-four elbows requiring external fixation for persistent elbow instability within 90 days of surgical management of an elbow fracture-dislocation. INTERVENTION: Static and dynamic external fixation was used in 16 and 8 patients, respectively, for a median of 39 days (interquartile range, 33-48 days). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Elbow range of motion, complications, and revision surgeries. RESULTS: Immediately after static and dynamic external fixation removal, there was no difference in elbow extension [33 degrees ± 16 degrees vs. 41 degrees ± 13 degrees, mean difference (MD) 7 degrees, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6 degrees-22 degrees] or flexion (114 degrees ± 35 degrees vs. 118 degrees ± 11 degrees, MD 4 degrees, 95% CI -23 degrees-132 degrees), respectively. At last follow-up, static and dynamic external fixation groups had no difference in elbow extension (27 degrees ± 13 degrees vs. 24 degrees ± 10 degrees, MD -3 degrees, 95% CI -15 degrees-7 degrees) or flexion (129 degrees ± 12 degrees vs. 128 degrees ± 14 degrees, MD -1 degree, 95% CI -13 degrees-10 degrees), respectively. Static and dynamic external fixation groups had no difference in complications [7 (44%) vs. 5 (63%), difference 19%, 95% CI -23%-54%] or revision surgeries [6 (38%) vs. 4 (50%), difference 13%, 95% CI -27%-49%]. CONCLUSIONS: No difference in range of motion, complications, and revision surgeries was detected after static versus dynamic external fixation of persistently unstable elbow fracture-dislocations. Due to ease of application, static external fixation is our preferred treatment for these injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".