MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284989121 · doi:10.1016/j.jot.2022.06.005

Treatment of tibial plateau fractures: A comparison of two different operation strategies with medium-term follow up

2022· article· en· W4284989121 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhongzheng Wang, Zhanle Zheng, Pengyu Ye, Siyu Tian, Yanbin Zhu, Wei Chen, Zhiyong Hou, Qi Zhang, Yingze Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Translation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWOMACOsteoarthritisTibial plateau fractureInternal fixationSurgeryMedium termRadiological weapon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The objective of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of two surgical methods for tibial plateau fractures (TPFs): minimally invasive surgery (MIS) using a double reverse traction repositor and traditional open reduction internal fixation (ORIF). Methods: From our prospectively collated database, 187 consecutive adult patients with 189 operatively treated TPFs in our level I trauma center were included from January 2015 to March 2018 who had a minimum of three years' follow-up. All cases were performed by the senior surgeon using either MIS (group 1, 84 patients with 84 TPFs) or ORIF (group 2, 103 patients with 105 TPFs). Details of the demographics, injury mechanism, pre- and postoperative follow-up imaging, operative procedures and complications were collected. The final results from the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) and Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) were obtained at the final follow-up. Results: ​= ​0.001). Radiologically, significant intergroup differences were observed in the loss of immediate postoperative reduction rates, secondary loss of reduction rates and signs of osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence). Two and ten superficial infections in group 1 (2.4%) and group 2 (9.5%), respectively, and 6 lateral popliteal nerve palsy cases occurred (0 MIS, 6 ORIF), with significant intergroup differences. Conclusion: Our study shows that the MIS using a double reverse traction repositor is promising and safe technique for the TPFs when used for the correct indications. The translational potential of this article: The current status of using a minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of TPFs have been analyzed and a new method of using a double reverse traction repositor for the treatment of TPFs have been proposed in this study, which updated treatment concept of TPFs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic TranslationSame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207