The role of cerclage wiring in the management of subtrochanteric and reverse oblique intertrochanteric fractures: a meta-analysis of comparative studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Subtrochanteric and reverse oblique intertrochanteric fractures are challenging and often difficult to reduce. While intramedullary nailing (IMN) is considered the standard treatment, achieving anatomic reduction prior to fixation is essential. This study aimed to assess the impact of cerclage wiring with IMN on the outcomes and complication rate in treating subtrochanteric and reverse oblique intertrochanteric fractures. Methods This meta-analysis was conducted in line with PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome was the time to union. The secondary outcomes were operative time, blood loss, quality of reduction, reduction alignment (if in varus), complications and reoperations. PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched till July 2021. Articles that compared intramedullary nailing (IMN) versus intramedullary nailing and cerclage wiring (IMN-C) in the treatment of subtrochanteric and reverse oblique intertrochanteric fractures were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Results This meta-analysis included 415 patients with subtrochanteric and reverse oblique intertrochanteric fracture from six comparative studies. Our findings showed that IMN-C was significantly associated with higher mean duration of surgery and blood loss. However, IMN-C had significantly lower mean time to union compared to IMN alone. In addition, IMN-C had lower pooled prevalence of varus reduction and overall complications. Conclusion This study showed that the use of cerclage wiring is associated with lower time to union, lower prevalence of varus reduction and overall complications. Therefore, cerclage wiring augmentation is a safe technique with low complication rate and may be advised whenever open reduction is needed in the management of subtrochanteric and reverse oblique intertrochanteric fractures.Other Information Published in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 See article on publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00590-022-03240-z
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 | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".