Functional Outcomes for Elderly Patients After ORIF for Distal Femur Fractures Are Similar to Outcomes for Patients After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The long-term clinical outcomes after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for distal femoral fractures, both native and peri-prosthetic, are not yet well established in the literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the clinically validated Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score to make the functional outcomes after ORIF comparable with the well-characterized results achieved after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for osteoarthritis. After long-term clinical follow-up and prospectively collected WOMAC scores were obtained, pain, stiffness, and function were evaluated for 68 elderly patients with distal femur fractures (34 periprosthetic, 34 native; median follow-up time, 2.43 years). RESULTS: Although pain and stiffness scores were significantly lower than those achieved after TKA, functional and total WOMAC scores were similar. Pain and function continued to improve with greater time to follow-up. Although 32% (22/68) of patients had a return to the operating room (3 for infection, 11 for nonunion, and 7 for implant prominence), total WOMAC scores at long-term follow-up were not different for the patients who returned to the operating room. Although stiffness may persist for some patients, the functional outcomes after this procedure are similar to outcomes for patients after primary TKA. The rate of fracture-related re-operations was 32%, but was not associated with poor clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: 2025;48(3):e124-e130.].
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it