Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures With a Nonbridging Cross-Pin Fixator (The CPX System)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many treatment methods exist for patients presenting with a fracture of the distal radius. With the evolution of innovative procedures and devices, treatment of these particular fractures is shifting to more contemporary approaches. The minimally invasive technique with the cross-pin fixator (CPX) system offers a new biomechanical concept for relatively rigid fixation of distal radius fractures (DRF). The CPX system uses percutaneous cross Kirschner wire fixation in combination with a nonbridging external fixator. The stability of the model is derived from the external unilateral frame and the positioning of multiple 1.6 mm Kirschner wires at various angles and planes to each other. This allows for maintenance of DRF reduction, early wrist mobilization, and a prompt return to the usual activities. Between September 2004 and September 2008, there were 54 patients with 56 DRF who were treated with the CPX system. Excluded from the report are 2 patients who had a bone graft and 1 patient who was not willing to adhere to the postoperative protocol. Of the 51 patients with 53 DRF, no major complications were reported. This article describes the CPX surgical technique, the indications, the complications, and the postoperative management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".