Fibular fixation as an adjuvant to tibial intramedullary nailing in the treatment of combined distal third tibia and fibula fractures: a biomechanical investigation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Distal third tibia fractures have classically been treated with standard plating, but intramedullary (IM) nailing has gained popularity. Owing to the lack of interference fit of the nail in the metaphyseal bone of the distal tibia, it may be beneficial to add rigid plating of the fibula to augment the overall stability of fracture fixation in this area. This study sought to assess the biomechanical effect of adding a fibular plate to standard IM nailing in the treatment of distal third tibia and fibula fractures. METHODS: Eight cadaveric tibia specimens were used. Tibial fixation consisted of a solid titanium nail locked with 3 screws distally and 2 proximally, and fibular fixation consisted of a 3.5 mm low-contact dynamic compression plate. A section of tibia and fibula was removed. Testing was accomplished with an MTS machine. Each leg was tested 3 times; with and without a fibular plate and with a repetition of the initial test condition. Vertical displacements were tested with an axial load up to 500 N, and angular rotation was tested with torques up to 5 N*m. RESULTS: The difference in axial rotation was the only statistically significant finding (p = 0.003), with fibular fixation resulting in 1.1 degrees less rotation through the osteotomy site (17.96 degrees v. 19.10 degrees ). Over 35% of this rotational displacement occurred at the nail-locking bolt interface with the application of small torsional forces. CONCLUSION: Fibular plating in addition to tibial IM fixation of distal third tibia and fibula fractures leads to slightly increased resistance to torsional forces. This small improvement may not be clinically relevant.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".