Avulsion Fractures of the Calcaneal Tuberosity: A Single-Center Review of Outcomes and Complications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this investigation was to determine the incidence of complications and revision surgery after calcaneal tuberosity avulsion fractures, to describe experience with different fixation constructs, and to compare revision surgery rates between tuberosity and tongue-type fractures of the calcaneus. DESIGN: This was a retrospective study at a single level 1 trauma center between 2001 and 2019, including patients with calcaneal tuberosity avulsion fractures compared with patients with calcaneal tongue-type fractures. RESULTS: Twenty-nine tuberosity fractures (23 surgical and six nonsurgical) and 37 tongue-type fractures (29 surgical and eight nonsurgical) were treated during the study period. Revision surgery was more common in the tuberosity group (26% versus 7%, P = 0.013). In the tuberosity group, 35% experienced some degree of implant failure, with 13% catastrophic loss of reduction and 22% loss of initial reduction with eventual union. Fragment size and initial displacement were not associated with revision surgery. No patients with implant failure noted in the tongue-type group. DISCUSSION: Calcaneal tuberosity fractures showed significantly higher rate of revision surgery and failure of fixation compared with tongue-type fractures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".