Combined Hip Procedure Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Displaced Acetabular Fractures in Patients Older than 75 years: A Matched Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical outcomes between combined hip procedure (CHP: open reduction and internal fixation [ORIF] with total hip replacement) and ORIF alone for the treatment of displaced acetabular fractures in a geriatric population. DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study. SETTING: Academic Level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients from 2012 till 2020 with acetabular fractures fitting inclusion criteria were enrolled. INTERVENTION: Combined hip procedure or ORIF alone for displaced acetabular fractures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: Revision surgery at the latest follow-up, defined as the need for implant revision in the CHP group and conversion to total hip replacement in the ORIF group. RESULTS: The need for revision surgery was lower in the CHP group (12.5%) compared with the ORIF alone group (25%). The median time for conversion to total hip replacement in the ORIF alone group was 2.6 years. Ten-year survivorship was significantly higher in the CHP group (85.7% vs. 45.8%, P < 0.01). Patients in the CHP group presented with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists and Charlson index scores and had more marginal impaction and concomitant femoral head fractures. CONCLUSIONS: In patients older than 75 years presenting with a displaced acetabular fracture with marginal impaction or femoral head fracture, survivorship of CHP is higher than ORIF alone. A combined hip procedure should be considered in such patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. 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 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 | 0.001 | 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".