Prone or lateral patient positioning in KocherLangenbeck approach in acetabular fractures fixation: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Kocher-Langenbeck (K-L) approach is the approach of choice to treat fractures involving the posterior acetabulum. It provides direct exposure to the acetabulum, adequate reduction, and access to treat associated hip fractures. However, there is no consensus on the positioning of the patient; prone or lateral. This review aimed to investigate the effect of patient positioning on the outcomes of the K-L approach in acetabular fracture fixation. Cochrane, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed were searched from inception until February 22, 2022. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies that investigated acetabular fracture fixation utilizing the K-L approach in relation to patient positioning (Prone and/or Lateral). Only English manuscripts that reported at least one of the outcomes of interest were included in the study. Studies that utilized both positions without specifying the outcomes in relation to the patient position were excluded from the study. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and the Joanna Briggs Institute tool were utilized to assess the quality of the included studies. This study included 521 patients from six articles. Of those patients, 46.1% were operated on in the lateral position and 53.9% in the prone position. The mean operative time of lateral and prone positions was 160.9 min (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 135.11–186.64) and 212.5 min (95% CI: 167.08–257.94), respectively. The mean blood loss in the lateral position was 502.mL (95% CI: 471.61–532.47) compared to 482.5 mL (95% CI: 396.77–568.28) in the prone position. The pooled complications in the lateral position were 29% (95% CI: 19–39%) compared to 37% (95% CI: 6–75%) in the prone position. The outcomes did not significantly differ when comparing lateral and prone patient positioning for posterior acetabular fracture fixation through the K-L approach. Further prospective randomized controlled studies are recommended to reach the best 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 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 | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".