Isolated greater trochanter fractures.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Isolated fractures of the greater trochanter (GT) in adults are rare injuries and traditionally treated without surgery. The present systematic review was designed to examine the treatment protocol for isolated GT fractures and to discover if innovative surgical techniques, such as arthroscopy or suture anchors, can be used to improve outcomes in young active patients. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted including all full-text articles suited our inclusion criteria from January 2000 describing treatment protocols of isolated great trochanter fractures confirmed at MRI in adults. RESULTS: The searches identified a total of 247 patients from 20 studies with a mean age 56.1 years and mean follow-up 13,7 months. Only 4 case report treated 4 patients with not unique surgical strategy. The rest of the patients were treated conservatively. DISCUSSION: Most trochanteric fractures can heal without surgical intervention with good results However, the patient must not immediately bear full weight and the abductor's function could decrease. Displaced GT fragments more than 2 cm or athletes, young, demanding patients may benefit from surgical fixation to regain abductor function and strength. Evidence-based surgical strategies could be provided by arthroplasty and periprosthetic literature. CONCLUSION: The grade of fracture displacement and the physical demands of the athlete can be important factors in the decision process for or against surgery. By now, no evidence-based guideline exists for the ideal treatment method in demanding patients. It is necessary use a "patient-specific" treatment strategy.
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 | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".