The Consequences of Subtrochanteric Fracture with Suboptimal Surgical Fixation Leading to Multiple Surgical Revisions: A Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subtrochanteric fractures are relatively rare and challenging for orthopedic surgeons.Failing to achieve proper alignment during surgery can result in devastating sequela and necessitate more complex reoperation.We present a case of a 50-year-old man with a history of diabetes and hypertension who suffered a right subtrochanteric fracture after a motor vehicle collision.He was treated with intramedullary fixation of the femur.Upon follow-up, the fracture was complicated by nonunion due to improper alignment and fixation method at the index procedure.Two attempts at revision with nailing and plating failed.Ultimately, we treated the patient with a revision nailing and autograft of the nonunion site which led to a desirable outcome and union of the fracture.This case highlights the complex and challenging nature of subtrochanteric fractures, which can require multiple interventions, consideration of underlying medical conditions, and perseverance in treatment before achieving successful outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".