Trajectory of Recovery following ORIF for Distal Radius Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Distal radius fractures are commonly seen among the elderly, though studies examining their long-term outcomes are limited. Purpose The aim of this study was to describe the 5-year trajectory of recovery of distal radius fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Methods Patients with distal radius fractures (AO/OTA 23.A-C) treated by ORIF were prospectively studied. Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) score was measured at baseline (preinjury recall) and postoperatively at 6 months, 1 year, and 5 years. Clinically relevant change in PRWE score was assessed using the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Results A total of 390 patients were included, of which 75% completed 5-year follow-up. Mean baseline PRWE score was 1.25 (standard deviation, SD: 2.9). At 6 months, mean PRWE score was at its highest up to 20.2 (SD: 18.4; p < 0.01). A significant improvement in mean PRWE score was observed at 1 year down to 15.2 (SD: 17.6; p < 0.01); 44% of patients were still one MCID outside of their baseline PRWE score at 1 year. Further significant improvement in mean PRWE score occurred at 5 years down to 9.4 (SD: 13.4; p < 0.01); 29% of patients remained one MCID outside of their baseline PRWE score at 5 years. Conclusion Recovery after ORIF for distal radius fractures showed significant worsening after surgery, followed by significant improvements up to 1 year and between years 1 and 5, albeit to a lesser extent. Statistically and clinically relevant wrist pain and disability persisted at 5 years. Future research should examine different treatment modalities and include a nonoperative treatment arm for comparison. Level of Evidence Prognostic level II.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".