Comparison of External Fixation with Illizarov Method Versus Open Reduction with Locking Plate in Comminuted Distal Radius Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: One of the most prevalent injuries encountered in orthopedic practice is a distal radius fracture. They account for 8% to 15% of all adult bone injuries. Fracture of the distal end of the radius with an intra-articular element typically signifies high-impact trauma in adolescents and young adults. The utilization of cast immobilization for the management of distal radius fractures has been substituted by several different surgical options over the last thirty years, such as the application of locking plates and external fixation.
 Aims & Objectives: To compare the outcome of external fixation with the Illizarov method versus Open Reduction Internal Fixation (ORIF) with locking T-plate in comminuted distal radius fracture.
 Place and duration of study: The study was performed in the Department of Orthopedics Surgery, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore over a period of six months from 10-07-2020 to 10-01-2021.
 Material & Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted after enrolling 80 patients fulfilling selection criteria, admitted through emergency & OPD of the same center. (N=40 in each group). Group A received external fixation with Illizarov method & Group B open reduction and internal fixation by applying T-plate). After Informed consent, surgeries were done under general anesthesia by a single surgical team with the assistance of the researcher. Follow-up for evaluation of grip strength and DASH score (as per operational definition) were in progress according to proforma and all information was calculated by the researcher himself through a Proforma (attached). Data was analyzed using SPSS version 22. P-value<0.05 was considered significant.
 Results: Mean age was calculated as 33.87±9.32 years in group A and 32.98±10.70 years in group B. There were 37.5
 %(n=30) males and 12.5% (n=10) females in group A. Whereas group B had 32.5 %(n=26) male and 17.5%(n=14) females. Mean grip strength in group A was 26.55±4.57 and 54.32±2.91 in group B (p-value <0.05).
 Conclusion: We concluded that there was a significant difference found in both groups(p-value<0.05). Therefore, external fixation with the Illizarov method produces better grip strength and DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder & Hand) score as compared to open reduction with a locking T-plate.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".