Outcome After Open Reduction Internal Fixation of Acetabular Fractures in the Elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: (1) Assess outcomes of acetabular open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in the elderly, (2) investigate factors influencing outcome, and (3) compare outcomes after low-energy and high-energy mechanisms of injury. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING: Level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS: Seventy-eight patients older than 60 years (age: 70.1 ± 7.4; 73.1% males). INTERVENTION: ORIF for acetabular fractures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Complications, reoperation rates, Oxford Hip Score (OHS), and joint preservation and development of symptomatic osteoarthritis. Cases with osteoarthritis, OHS < 34, and those who required subsequent total hip arthroplasty were considered as poor outcome. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 4.3 ± 3.7 years, 11 cases post-ORIF required a total hip arthroplasty. The 7-year joint survival post-ORIF was 80.7 ± 5.7%. Considering poor outcome as failure, the 7-year joint survival was 67.0 ± 8.9%. The grade of reduction was the most significant factor associated with outcome post-ORIF. Female sex (P = 0.03), pre-existing osteoporosis (P = 0.03), low-energy trauma (P = 0.04), and Matta grade (P = 0.002) were associated with poor outcome. Patients with associated both-column fractures were more likely to have nonanatomic reduction (P = 0.008). After low-energy trauma, joint survivorship was 36.6 ± 13.5% at 7 years compared with 75.4 ± 7.4% in the high-energy group when considering poor outcome as an end point (log rank P = 0.006). The cohort's mean OHS was 37.9 ± 9.3 (17-48). CONCLUSIONS: We recommend ORIF whenever an anatomic reduction is feasible. However, achievement and maintenance of anatomic reduction are a challenge in the elderly, specifically in those with low-energy fractures involving both columns, prompting consideration for alternative management strategies. 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 | 0.001 | 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".