Long-Term Trajectory of Recovery Following Pilon Fracture Fixation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the trajectory of recovery following fixation of pilon fractures from baseline to 5-year follow-up. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Level-1 trauma center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Patients with pilon fractures (OTA/AO 43.C) treated with open reduction and internal fixation. INTERVENTION: None. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Patient-reported outcome measures were measured at baseline, 6 months, 1 year, and 5 years using the Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Component Score and Mental Component Score, Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment, and the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score. RESULTS: One hundred two patients were enrolled: mean age was 42.6 years; 69% were males; 88% had an injury severity score of 9; 74 patients (73%) completed 1-year follow-up; 40 patients (39%) completed 5-year follow-up. Trajectory of recovery of physical function showed a significant decline between baseline and 6 months, with significant improvement between 6 months and 1 year and then ongoing but slower improvement between 1 year and 5 years. Sixty-four patients returned to baseline SF-36 Physical Component Score at 5 years. Pain was a persistent issue and remained significantly worse at 5 years when compared with baseline. Psychological well-being (SF-36 Mental Component Score) did not significantly change from baseline at 5 years. CONCLUSION: Functional recovery following open reduction and internal fixation for pilon fractures was characterized by an initial decrease in function from baseline, followed by an increase between 6 months and 1 year, and then slower but continued increases from 1 year to 5 years. Function did not return to baseline levels, pain was a persistent issue, and mental well-being showed no change from baseline at 5 years. This information may be useful when counselling patients. 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 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".