Reoperation and Complication Rates Following Patellar Fracture Repair with Plates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work has suggested good clinical and functional results with dorsal surface plating of patellar fractures. The primary outcome measurement of this study was reoperation rates for patellar fractures that had been treated with dorsal plating. Methods: This work consists of a retrospective review of clinical and functional outcome data following repair of patellar fractures with dorsal plates. We obtained institutional review board approval for this study and conducted a review of 9 consecutive years of our group's trauma practice. We also contacted patients to assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after 12 months. Results: Eighty-five patellar fractures were treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) via plating over 9 years. Eight (9.41%) of the patients required reoperation. Of the 72 patients with complete follow-up of ≥12 weeks, 3 (4.17%) had nonunion of the fracture site and 4 (5.56%) had loss of reduction of the fracture. The average Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score among our sample was 18.84 (slight symptoms); 72.41% of the patients in our sample had slight or no symptoms at ≥12 months postoperatively. Conclusions: Our results indicated that plating of comminuted patellar fractures is a safe, viable treatment strategy. The PROs at ≥12 months of follow-up data were promising. Additionally, dorsal plating may allow for early return of function and less postoperative bracing. 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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".