Management of Ankle Fractures – A Survey of Practices of Orthopaedic Surgeons in Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Ankle fractures are fairly common worldwide but there is scanty literature on the man-agement of these fractures from sub-Saharan Africa. This study provides a broad picture of the prac-tices of orthopaedic surgeons in Nigeria in managing ankle fractures. Consequently, these practices can be updated, areas for further research highlighted and subsequently, guidelines developed con-cerning the contextual management of these fractures in Nigeria.Methods: This survey was carried out using online and hard copy questionnaires, distributed at an annual conference of the Nigerian Orthopaedic Association and sent to three regional centres of orthopaedic practice, respectively. The data was analysed to determine frequencies.Results: There were 114 male and 16 female respondents. Sixty-one percent of the respondents preferred the Danis-Weber classification. While fifty-six percent of the cohort noted that most of these patients present to traditional bone setters before seeking orthodox care, seventy percent con-sidered arrival to hospital in 1 – 4 weeks post injury to be the norm. The Ottawa ankle rules are ap-plied by most (56%) of the participants. About a sixth (17.5%) of our cohort apply syndesmosis screws routinely, while twenty-eight percent of them do not remove these screws. The commonest post-operative complications encountered were chronic pain, flap necrosis and local sepsis. Sixty percent of the surgeons regarded post-operative physiotherapy as beneficial.Conclusions: While a preference for traditional bone setter care and delayed presentation ham-pers formal care of ankle fractures, orthopaedic surgeons in Nigeria tend to apply nonoperative ap-proaches. Patient assessment and any surgical intervention are usually based on modern principles.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".