What is the best method of fixation for minimally displaced subcapital neck of femur fractures? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Femoral neck fractures are a common cause of morbidity and mortality in the community. Minimally displaced subcapital necks of femoral fractures are usually managed with internal fixation, although there is debate as to which method is superior. This systematic review aimed to compare the outcomes of different fixation methods in the management of this common fracture. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA statement guidelines. The databases searched were MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE (Ovid). The study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, and relevant data were extracted and synthesised. RESULTS: Nine articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 819 patients were included in this study. Eight of the nine studies were case series, and one was a randomised control trial. The mean risk of bias was 7.4/9 for non-randomised articles. The fixation methods used in the included studies were dynamic hip screw (DHS), cannulated screws, Smith-Peterson nail, hooknail, Moore's pins, and Knowle's pins. DHS was found to be a superior method of fixation and was supported by a clinical trial. It has high rates of union (99 %), low rates of avascular necrosis (<1 %), and low rates of fixation failure (<1 %). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available data, DHS appears to be the superior method of fixation for the minimally displaced subcapital neck of femoral fractures. Given the general low level of evidence currently available, additional clinical trials are needed in this area.
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 | 0.012 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".