Influence of Screw Type on Obtained Contact Area and Contact Force in a Cadaveric Subtalar Arthrodesis Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the compression effect of the 7.0-AO screw and the 6.5 mm Ideal Compression Screw (I.CO.S.) screw in an in vitro subtalar arthodesis model. Six fresh-frozen, human cadaver foot specimens were obtained for analysis. The subtalar joint was opened laterally without affecting the articular surfaces. ATekscan 5051 sensor with a maximum pressure of 250 PSI and a sensel-density of 62 sensel/sq-cm was placed into the joint, which allowed for continuous measurement of the contact area and contact forces achieved by one 7.0 AO-screw, and thereafter by one 6.5 I.CO.S.-screw. When tightening the screw, mean contact area increased by 0.21 cm2 for the AO-screw (p<0.05), and by 0.27 cm2 for the I.CO.S.-screw (p>0.05). When comparing the tightened AO-screw and I.CO.S.-screw, mean contact area increased from 1.40 cm2 to 1.97 cm2 (p<0.05). The mean contact force also increased when tightening the screws. This increase was 7.6 N for the AO-screw (p<0.05) and 14.8 N for the I.CO.S.-screw (p>0.05). When comparing the tightened AO-screw and I.CO.S.-screw, mean contact force increased from 54.9 N to 81.7 N (p<0.05). The obtained results have shown that the design of the screw influences the achieved compression force. The superior compression of the I.CO.S.-screw might be explained by the better gripping and additional compression mechanism of its head. The shape of the head of the cannulated AO-screw, in contrast, may be critical to resist against the weak cortical bone of the calcaneus, i.e. it can sink into soft bone resulting in a loss of compression force.
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".