MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4316190267 · doi:10.7759/cureus.33776

Management of Femoral Shaft Fractures: The Significance of Traction or Operative Position

2023· article· en· W4316190267 on OpenAlexaff
Dhruv Gupte, Daniel Axelrod, Tanis Worthy, Taylor Woolnough, Asher Selznick, Herman Johal

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeIntramedullary rodSurgeryTraction (geology)FluoroscopySupine positionFemoral fractureFemoral shaftFemur

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objective Intramedullary femoral nailing (IMN) is the gold standard for managing femoral shaft fractures (FSFs). Though good clinical outcomes and union rates have been reported following this procedure, it has also been commonly associated with perioperative complications. Positioning the patient in lateral decubitus, avoiding a fracture table, or using manual traction have been touted as possible techniques to reduce perioperative complications in IMN. However, given the scarce availability of comparative research, the decision to employ any of the techniques mentioned above is often guided by surgeon preference alone. In light of this, the purpose of this study was to determine whether the use of free-leg draping using either supine or direct lateral positioning with manual traction reduces perioperative complications among trauma patients undergoing an anterograde femoral nailing surgery when compared to using a fracture table. Methods Consecutive adult patients from a level-one trauma center undergoing unilateral antegrade femoral fixation surgeries between 2016 and 2020 were retrospectively evaluated for possible inclusion in the study. Relevant perioperative and postoperative data, including length of hospital or ICU stay and perioperative complications, were included in the analysis. This study received research ethics board approval before data collection began. Results A total of 91 patients were ultimately included in the final analysis: 61 patients were included in the free-leg draping with manual traction group (FL) and 30 patients were included in the traction table group (TT). Patients in the FL group had a similar operative and fluoroscopy time, blood loss, length of stay, and time on the ventilator. Subgroup analysis comparing positioning within the FL group revealed non-significant differences in fluoroscopy time (p=0.59) and length of stay (p=0.20) between the lateral and supine groups. Moreover, no differences in operative time, blood loss, and time on the ventilator were observed between lateral and supine groups. Conclusion Based on our findings, there were no significant differences in terms of operative or fluoroscopy time, perioperative complications, or length of time in the hospital or on the ventilator between the groups. Our study was limited by its small sample size and incomplete data. Further prospective randomized research is required to reach definitive conclusions on the appropriate manner to treat patients with these complex and morbid injuries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207