Open Reduction Internal Fixation Versus Distal Femoral Replacement (DFR) for Treatment of OTA/AO 33C Fractures in the Elderly: A Review of Functional Outcomes and Cost Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the economic cost associated with the treatment of OTA/AO 33C fractures in patients older than 65 years of age using open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) or DFR and to assess the perioperative outcomes of elderly patients treated surgically following OTA/AO 33C fractures. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort over a 10-year period. SETTING: A single level-1 trauma center. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTION: Thirty-nine patients 65 or older with OTA/AO 33C fractures who underwent treatment with ORIF (n = 27) or DFR (n = 12) were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Direct cost associated with surgical treatment along with LOS, functional outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, and all-cause reoperation. RESULTS: Index procedure costs were as follows: DFR: $ 61,259 vs. ORIF: $44,490 (P = 0.056). Five (20%) ORIF patients required revision versus one (8%) in the DFR group. Total cost when including reoperation resulted in DFR being $14,805 more costly, which was not significant. Hospital LOS was similar between groups; however, convalescent LOS was longer in ORIF patients (43.2 vs. 23.1 days, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that there is no significant difference in overall cost between ORIF and DFR when all costs are considered. A larger portion of DFR patients were able to mobilize postoperatively, with subacute length of stay being longer in ORIF patients. A multicenter trial is warranted to determine optimal treatment for this complex problem. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".