Defining the Flexion-Extension Axis of the Ulna: Implications for Intra-Operative Elbow Alignment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increased utilization of total elbow replacements has resulted in a correspondingly increased number of failed implants requiring revision. The most common reason for revision is aseptic loosening of the ulnar component due to polyethylene induced osteolysis. Implant malalignment is thought to be an important cause of bearing wear and implant failure. The ulnar flexion axis can be used to accurately align the ulnar component of the elbow implant; however, the optimal method of determining this axis intra-operatively is unknown. This in vitro study determined the relationship amongst kinematically and anatomically defined ulnar flexion axes in an effort to improve the accuracy of ulnar component positioning. Five different techniques were used to determine the ulnar flexion axis in 12 cadaveric specimens, 3 kinematic and 2 anatomic. The techniques were compared with the screw displacement axis from simulated elbow flexion. An anatomic measurement technique using the guiding ridge of the greater sigmoid notch of the ulna and the radial head was found to most accurately replicate the position and orientation of the screw displacement axis of the elbow (p<0.05). Because an anatomically derived flexion axis can be determined using both pre-operative imaging techniques, as well as with intra-operative guides, it is more practical than kinematically derived techniques requiring tracking systems for clinical application and should provide reliable and consistent results.
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".