How does internal fixation compared with arthroplasty affect quality of life for patients who have suffered femoral neck fractures?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives: To evaluate functional outcomes amongst femoral neck fracture trial participants who did not undergo reoperation. Design: Secondary analysis of 2 randomized controlled trials. Setting: Ninety hospitals in 5 continents. Participants: Patients aged 50 years or older with a femoral neck fracture. Intervention: Arthroplasty, including total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty, or internal fixation, including sliding hip screw or multiple cancellous screws. Main Outcome Measurement: The Western Ontario and McMaster University Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) physical component summary (PCS). Results: Data from 716 arthroplasty patients and 549 internal fixation patients were included in our propensity score weighting model. Internal fixation patients had higher WOMAC stiffness scores (leading to poorer function) at 24 months postoperatively compared with total hip arthroplasty patients (adjusted mean difference [AMD] 0.42 points, 99% confidence interval [CI] 0.09–0.75; P < 0.001) and hemiarthroplasty patients (AMD 0.39 points, 99% CI 0.04–0.74; P = 0.004). However, this statistically significant difference did not reach the 7-point threshold for a minimal clinically important difference. No statistically significant differences were found in the other WOMAC scales, nor with the SF-12 PCS. In participants aged 70 years or younger, no difference was found in any of the functional outcomes at 24 months. Conclusion: While stiffness is worse following internal fixation, our results show similar functional outcomes in femoral neck fracture patients undergoing modern methods of internal fixation versus arthroplasty. These results, however, may not be applicable to a younger, more active hip fracture population. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level II.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".