Geriatric Intertrochanteric Fractures: What Is the Optimal Follow-Up Period?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate patients with intertrochanteric fractures who were treated operatively to determine optimal follow-up to ensure complete fracture healing and recognize complications. DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Academic Level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion criteria included isolated intertroch fractures (not pathologic) and complete radiographic and clinical data, with at least 1-year follow-up. Four hundred ninety-seven patients were identified. Two hundred forty-nine patients met inclusion criteria with 194 patients studied. INTERVENTION: Operative fixation with either CMN or SHS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Radiographic parameters included time to union, neck-shaft angle, tip apex distance, and femoral neck screw telescoping (shortening) for both CMS and SHS combined. Postoperative complications were recorded. RESULTS: Union was achieved at a mean of 64.8 ± 30.7 days. Mortality (n = 12), infection (n = 4), and implant failure (n = 5) occurred within 3 months. Neck-shaft angle was changed before 3 months. Significant neck shortening for both CMN and SHS occurred within 6 weeks ( P =<0.001). Major complications occurred early, within 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Most fractures healed by 3 months and the remainder by 6 months. Routine follow-up for 6 months is more than sufficient for most of these fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".