Surgical strategies in pediatric supracondylar humeral fractures: our experience.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Supracondylar humeral fractures are the most common skeletal injury of childhood elbow. Treatment option for Gartland type II-III-IV fractures is based on closed reduction and percutaneous pinning (CRPP) fixation using Kirshner wires. Seldom open reduction is needed. Literature described different method of CRPP. The aim of the study is to report our experience in the surgical management of supracondylar humeral fractures comparing it with the literature, in order to identify useful information for a correct and better approach to reduce complications and improve clinical outcomes. METHODS: 148 patients with a mean age of 5.72 ± 2.52 years and with Gartland type II-III-IV humeral supracondylar fractures were treated with CRPP at our Orthopedic Pediatric Unit. They were divided into three groups according to surgical technique. Group A was represented by patients treated with cross pinning (1 medial and 1 lateral pin), Group B represented by 2 lateral pins while Group C represented by 2 lateral and one medial pin. Evaluation criteria are based on Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI); Bauman's and Carrying Angle and Flynn's criteria. Data were recorded at the following times: T0 (before surgical procedure); T1 (one-month post-surgery); T2 (six months post-surgery). RESULTS: The three surgical techniques showed comparable results according to MEPI, Bauman's angle, Carrying's angle and Flynn's criteria from T0 to T1. There is an improvement for all Groups. Group C reported the best MEPI outcome at T2. However, 2 patients in this group did not show excellent results according to Flynn's criteria. CONCLUSIONS: There is no single and superior treatment for displaced humeral supracondylar fractures and that each fracture has its own personality.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".