Effects of surgical treatment modalities on postoperative cognitive function and delirium in elderly patients with extremely unstable hip fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As the perioperative risk of elderly patients with extremely unstable hip fractures (EUHFs) is relatively high and therapeutic effect is not satisfactory, new thera-peutic strategies need to be proposed urgently to improve the efficacy and clinical outcomes of such patients. AIM: To determine the influence of two surgical treatment modalities on postoperative cognitive function (CF) and delirium in elderly patients with EUHFs. METHODS: A total of 60 elderly patients consecutively diagnosed with EUHF between September 2020 and January 2022 in the Chongqing University Three Gorges Hospital were included. Of them, 30 patients received conventional treatment (control group; general consultation + fracture type-guided internal fixation), and the other 30 received novel treatment (research group; perioperative multidisciplinary treatment diagnosis and treatment + individualized surgical plan + risk prediction). Information on hip function [Harris hip score (HHS)], perioperative risk of orthopedic surgery [Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity (POSSUM)], CF [Montreal cognitive assessment scale (MoCA)], postoperative delirium [mini-cognitive (Mini-Cog)], adverse events (AEs; internal fixation failure, infection, nonunion, malunion, and postoperative delirium), and clinical indicators [operation time (OT), postoperative hospital length of stay (HLOS), ambulation time, and intraoperative blood loss (IBL)] were collected from both groups for comparative analyses. RESULTS: The HHS scores were similar between both groups. The POSSUM score at 6 mo after surgery was significantly lower in the research group compared with the control group, and MoCA and Mini-Cog scores were statistically higher. In addition, the overall postoperative complication rate was significantly lower in the research than in the control group, including reduced OT, postoperative HLOS, ambulation time, and IBL. CONCLUSION: The new treatment modality has more clinical advantages over the conventional treatment, such as less IBL, faster functional recovery, more effectively optimized perioperative quality control, improved postoperative CF, mitigated postoperative delirium, and reduced operation-related AEs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".