MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411413709 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.24.01250

Differences in Practice Patterns in the Use of Temporary External Fixation for the Management of Open Lower-Extremity Fractures

2025· article· en· W4411413709 on OpenAlexaff
Augustine M. Saiz, Christina A. Stennett, Nicholas M. Romeo, Kevin D. Phelps, Joshua L. Gary, Christopher M. Domes, Mark J. Gage, Nathan N. O’Hara, Sheila Sprague, Gerard P. Slobogean, Stephen J. Warner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExternal fixationConfidence intervalFixation (population genetics)Odds ratioSurgeryOpen fractureExternal fixatorOrthopedic surgeryPopulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: External fixation is often used in the management of open lower-extremity fractures. The objectives of this study were to identify hospital characteristics that are associated with greater use of temporary external fixation and to determine if external fixation reduces the odds of surgical site infection (SSI) and unplanned reoperation among patients with open lower-extremity fractures. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of the Aqueous-PREP and PREPARE-Open trials involving open lower-extremity fractures. Wilcoxon rank-sum and Fisher exact tests were used to assess if temporary external fixation use varied between hospital clusters. Mixed-effects logistic regression models controlling for hospital cluster and participant characteristics estimated the associations between temporary external fixation and SSI or unplanned reoperation. RESULTS: There were 2,438 patients with an open lower-extremity fracture identified, with 568 (23.3%) undergoing temporary external fixation. There were 34 participating hospitals with a median external fixation rate of 21.5%. Hospitals with higher temporary external fixation use had a higher number of surgeons treating patients with fracture (p = 0.02). There was no difference in SSI at 90 days (odds ratio [OR], 1.16 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82 to 1.66]; p = 0.40) or 1 year (OR, 1.30 [95% CI, 0.97 to 1.75]; p = 0.08) between patients who did and did not undergo temporary external fixation. Patients who underwent temporary external fixation were more likely to have unplanned reoperations within 1 year (OR, 1.40 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.79]; p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: More temporary external fixation for open lower-extremity fractures was performed at hospitals with more surgeons treating fractures. There was no difference in SSI at 90 days or 1 year between patients who did and did not undergo temporary external fixation. Temporary external fixation tended to be used in more critically ill patients and patients with more severe fractures but was not associated with increased unplanned reoperations at 90 days or at 1 year. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint SurgerySame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207