The Results of Early Primary Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Treatment of OTA 43.C-Type Tibial Pilon Fractures: A Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The optimal treatment for pilon fractures remains controversial. We have used early single-stage open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) to treat these injuries and the purpose of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of this strategy. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: Level I trauma center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-five patients with Orthopaedic Trauma Association type 43.C pilon fractures. INTERVENTION: Primary ORIF. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: Primary: Wound dehiscence or deep infection requiring surgery; secondary: quality of fracture reduction, functional outcomes (SF-36 and Foot and Ankle Outcome Score). RESULTS: Primary ORIF was performed within 24 hours in 70% of cases and within 48 hours in 88%. Reduction was judged to be anatomic in 90% cases. Six patients developed a deep wound infection or dehiscence that required surgical débridement, four after open fractures (four of 21 [19%]) and two after closed fractures (two of 74 [2.7%]). Complications were associated with local scarring, chronic alcohol abuse, schizophrenia, diabetes, and peripheral neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS: Provided surgery is performed expeditiously by experienced orthopaedic trauma surgeons, most tibial pilon fractures can be stabilized by primary ORIF within a safe and effective operative window with relatively low rates of wound complications, a high quality of reduction, and functional outcomes that compare favorably with the published results for all other reported surgical treatments of these severe injuries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".