Improving greater trochanteric reattachment with a novel cable plate system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cable-grip systems are commonly used for greater trochanteric reattachment because they have provided the best fixation performance to date, even though they have a rather high complication rate. A novel reattachment system is proposed with the aim of improving fixation stability. It consists of a Y-shaped fixation plate combined with locking screws and superelastic cables to reduce cable loosening and limit greater trochanter movement. The novel system is compared with a commercially available reattachment system in terms of greater trochanter movement and cable tensions under different greater trochanteric abductor application angles. A factorial design of experiments was used including four independent variables: plate system, cable type, abductor application angle, and femur model. The test procedure included 50 cycles of simultaneous application of an abductor force on the greater trochanter and a hip force on the femoral head. The novel plate reduces the movements of a greater trochanter fragment within a single loading cycle up to 26%. Permanent degradation of the fixation (accumulated movement based on 50-cycle testing) is reduced up to 46%. The use of superelastic cables reduces tension loosening up to 24%. However this last improvement did not result in a significant reduction of the grater trochanter movement. The novel plate and cables present advantages over the commercially available greater trochanter reattachment system. The plate reduces movements generated by the hip abductor. The superelastic cables reduce cable loosening during cycling. Both of these positive effects could decrease the risks related to grater trochanter non-union.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".