Reconstruction of the Coronoid Process Using the Tip of the Ipsilateral Olecranon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Autograft reconstruction of the coronoid using the tip of the olecranon has been described as a treatment option for comminuted coronoid fractures or coronoid nonunions that are not repairable. The purpose of this in vitro biomechanical study of the coronoid-deficient elbow was to determine whether coronoid reconstruction using the tip of the ipsilateral olecranon would restore elbow kinematics. METHODS: An elbow motion simulator was used to perform active and passive extension of six cadaveric arms in the horizontal, valgus, varus, and vertical orientations. Elbow kinematics were quantified with use of the screw displacement axis of the ulna with respect to the humerus. Testing was performed with an intact coronoid, a 40% coronoid deficiency, and a coronoid reconstruction using the tip of the ipsilateral olecranon. RESULTS: Creation of a 40% coronoid deficiency resulted in significant changes (range, 3.6° to 10.9°) in the angular deviations of the screw displacement axis relative to the intact state during simulated active and passive extension in the varus orientation with the forearm in pronation and in supination (p < 0.05). Reconstruction of the coronoid using the ipsilateral olecranon tip restored the angular deviations to those in the intact state (p > 0.05) with the arm in all orientations except valgus, in which there was a small but significant difference (0.4° ± 0.2°, p = 0.04) during passive motion with forearm supination. CONCLUSIONS: Reconstruction of the coronoid using the tip of the ipsilateral olecranon was an effective method for restoring normal kinematics over a range of elbow motion from 20° to 120° in a cadaveric model of an elbow with a 40% coronoid deficiency. This reconstruction technique may prove beneficial for patients with elbow instability due to coronoid deficiency.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".