Radiographic Union Assessment in Surgically Treated Distal Femur Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Distal femur fractures are known to have challenging nonunion rates. Despite various available treatment methods aimed to improve union, optimal interventions are yet to be determined. Importantly, there remains no standard agreement on what defines radiographic union. Although various proposed criteria of defining radiographic union exist in the literature, there is no clear consensus on which criteria provide the most precise measurement. The use of inconsistent measures of fracture healing between studies can be problematic and limits their generalizability. Therefore, this systematic review aims to identify how fracture union is defined based on radiographic parameters for surgically treated distal femur fractures in current literature. METHODS: In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science Core Collection databases were searched from inception to October 2022. Studies that addressed surgically treated distal femur fractures with reported radiographic union assessment were included. Outcomes extracted included radiographic definition of union; any testing of validity, reliability, or responsiveness; reported union rate; reported time to fracture union; and any functional outcomes correlated with radiographic union. RESULTS: Sixty articles with 3,050 operatively treated distal femur fractures were included. Operative interventions included lateral locked plate (42 studies), intramedullary nail (15 studies), dynamic condylar screw or blade plate (7 studies), dual plate or plate and nail construct (5 studies), distal anterior-posterior/posterior-anterior screws (1 study), and external fixation with a circular frame (1 study). The range of mean follow-up time reported was 4.3 to 44 months. The most common definitions of fracture union included "bridging or callus formation across 3 of 4 cortices" in 26 (43%) studies, "bony bridging of cortices" in 21 (35%) studies, and "complete bridging of cortices" in 9 (15%) studies. Two studies included additional assessment of radiographic union using the Radiographic Union Scale in Tibial fracture (RUST) or modified Radiographic Union Scale in Tibial fracture (mRUST) scores. One study included description of validity, and the other study included reliability testing. The reported mean union rate of distal femur fractures was 89% (range 58%-100%). The mean time to fracture union was documented in 49 studies and found to be 18 weeks (range 12-36 weeks) in 2,441 cases. No studies reported correlations between functional outcomes and radiographic parameters. CONCLUSION: The current literature evaluating surgically treated distal femur fractures lacks consistent definition of radiographic fracture union, and the appropriate time point to make this judgement is unclear. To advance surgical optimization, it is necessary that future research uses validated, reliable, and continuous measures of radiographic bone healing and correlation with functional outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV. 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 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 | 0.016 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".