MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405481220 · doi:10.7759/cureus.75838

Hindfoot Nailing for Surgical Management of Open Ankle Fractures in the Elderly: A Systematic Review

2024· review· en· W4405481220 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aditya V Boppana, Akash S Boppana, Michael A Roberts, Christopher J Wall

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnkleCINAHLInternal fixationSurgeryMEDLINESystematic reviewCochrane LibraryPsychological interventionRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Open ankle fractures in the elderly are increasingly common, with significant morbidity and mortality. Management is challenging due to poor soft tissue conditions, comorbidities, and limited functional independence. While traditional surgical options include external fixation or open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), hindfoot nail (HFN) fixation may offer advantages, including immediate weight-bearing and reduced immobilisation complications. However, no systematic review has assessed the outcomes of HFNs in managing open ankle fractures in this population. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Comprehensive searches of the Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane databases were conducted on September 24, 2024, with inclusion criteria focused on studies involving HFN for open ankle fractures in patients aged ≥60 years. Outcomes included union rates, infection, complications, and functional recovery. Two reviewers independently performed data extraction and quality assessment (using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale), with narrative synthesis due to study heterogeneity. Five retrospective studies were included where open ankle fractures were treated with HFNs. Across studies, immediate post-operative weight-bearing was allowed in most cases. Union rates ranged from 85% to 100%. Infection rates varied between 6.3% and 17.9%, with implant-related complications noted in 18.7% of cases. Functional outcomes, where reported, were moderate, with scores such as the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) averaging 45-57 (62 preoperatively). Mortality at six to 12 months ranged from 15% to 61%. Compared to ORIF, HFNs demonstrated no difference in union rates or complications, including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). HFNs utilised in arthrodesis resulted in increased wound complications, and implant removal reoperations compared to ORIF (10%-20% vs. 5%-10%) in frail patients with compromised soft tissues. HFNs used for fixation only resulted in similar complication rates to ORIF. HFNs appear to be a viable option for managing open ankle fractures in elderly patients. Offering advantages such as immediate weight-bearing and reduced immobilization risks. However, higher rates of implant-related complications and variable functional outcomes warrant caution. Prospective, comparative studies are needed to better delineate the role of HFNs in this complex patient population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207