Rotational Malalignment After Intramedullary Nailing of Tibial Shaft Fractures Is Predictable
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Intramedullary nailing is the treatment of choice for most tibial shaft fractures (TSF). However, an iatrogenic pitfall may be rotational malalignment. The aim of this retrospective analysis was to determine predictors of rotational malalignment following intramedullary nailing of TSF. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Single level 1 trauma center. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: Patients who had a unilateral intramedullary nailing for TSF with a low-dose bilateral postoperative CT to assess rotational malalignment. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: Bivariable analysis followed by multivariable analysis was then undertaken to assess for any independent predictors, such as fracture type/sight, surgeon experience, and side of fracture, predictive of rotational malalignment. RESULTS: In total, 154 patients (71% male, median age 37 years) were included in this study. Thirty-nine percent of variability in postoperative rotational malalignment could be explained using a model including (increased) tibial torsion of the noninjured side (mean [38.9 degrees ± 9.02 degrees] considered normal tibial torsion), side of tibial fracture, and spiral-type tibial fracture (R2 = 0.39, P ≤ 0.001, F = 31.40). In this model, there was a negative linear association between degrees of torsion on the noninjured side and rotational malalignment (-0.45, P < 0.001)-as baseline torsion increased from mean by 1 degree, malrotation in the opposite direction of 0.54 degrees seen. Positive linear associations between right-sided TSF and rotational malalignment (8.59 P < 0.001) as well as spiral fractures and rotational malalignment (5.03, P < 0.01) were seen. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that baseline reduced (internal) tibial torsion of the noninjured limb, spiral fractures, and right-sided TSF are predictive of postoperative external rotational malalignment. Conversely, increased baseline (external) tibial torsion of the noninjured limb and left-sided TSF are predictive of postoperative internal rotational malalignment. Surgeons may use this regression model preoperatively to predict what sort of postoperative rotational difference their patient may be prone to. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".