An Institutional Standardised Protocol for the Treatment of Acute Displaced Midshaft Clavicle Fractures (ADMCFs): Conservative or Surgical Management for Active Patients?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: The treatment of acute displaced midshaft clavicle fractures (ADMCFs) is still under debate. The aim of this study was to verify the effectiveness of our institutional protocol by comparing the clinical and radiographic outcomes of two groups of patients with ADMCFs treated operatively and non-operatively. Materials and Methods: active patients with a traumatic, isolated non-pathological ADMCF with at least 1-year clinical and radiographic follow up were included. Surgical treatment was performed in the cases where the residual displacement was higher than 140% after the application of a figure-of-eight bandage (F8-B). All other cases were treated conservatively with a F8-B. A total of 134 patients were enrolled and divided into two groups: surgical and conservative groups, with 59 and 75 patients, respectively. Radiological and clinical parameters were evaluated. Results: Good clinical (Constant-Murley Score, the Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, and VAS satisfaction) and radiographic outcomes (initial and residual shortening, initial and residual displacement) were obtained for ADMCFs in both groups. Multivariate analysis showed that patients treated conservatively had better clinical outcomes compared to surgically treated patients (p < 0.001). Return to sports was longer in those treated with surgery. Initial shortening was found to impact clinical outcomes as well as initial displacement. None of the patients showed signs of non-union in both groups. Conclusions: Very good mid-term clinical results can be obtained in adult patients with ADMCFs, conservatively or operatively managed, by applying our institutional treatment protocol based on objective radiographic parameters evaluated in the ER.
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 | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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".