MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001323166 · doi:10.1177/2325967115s00026

Effect of Biceps Tenodesis Using PEEK Screw on the Torsional Strength of Humerus

2015· article· en· W2001323166 on OpenAlexaff
C Mellano, Jason J. Shin, Randhir Mascarenhas, Elizabeth Shewman, Vincent M. Wang, Anthony A. Romeo, Nikhil N. Verma, Brian Forsythe

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBicepsHumerusTendonProximal humerusCadaverOrthodonticsPopulationAnatomySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Biceps tendoesis is a commonly accepted surgical option for long head biceps related pathology. Sub-pectoral tenodesis with interference screw offers reproducible outcomes with high biomechanical strength allowing for accelerated rehabilitiation. However, there is concern regarding potential fracture risk associate with a diaphyseal humeral tunnel particularly in an athletic population. The purpose of this study was to determine the amount of torsional strength reduction in the humerus resulting from an unicortically drilled hole, and to evaluate the effect of inserting a tenodesis screw into the drilled defect. We hypothesized that unicortical drilling would weaken the humerus and that the use of tenodesis screws would restore strength to the humerus. Methods: Twenty (10 matched pairs) of fresh frozen full length humeri (mean age 55.3 years, range 37-70 years) were used to perform this study. All humeral specimens were stripped of all soft tissue, except for the pectoralis major tendon, which was used to determine location of the tenodesis. Specimens were allocated to either Screw (n=5) or Empty Ream Group (n=5) and the matching contralateral pairs remained intact. In the Empty Ream specimens, an 8 mm unicortical hole was placed into the bicipital groove 1 cm proximal to the inferior border of the pectoralis major tendon. The humeri in the Screw Group were prepared in the same manner and filled with a 8mm x 12 mm polyetheretherketone (PEEK) screw. All specimens were tested until failure under torsional loading at a rate of 1 degree/second. Peak torque, angular deformation at peak, and total energy to failure were recorded. A paired t-test was used to compare data from left and right humeri for each of the two groups. Data were also evaluated as the ratio of the intervention humerus to its contralateral intact humerus in order to compare Tenodesis Screw and Empty Ream groups via a 2-tailed, unpaired t-test. Statistical significance was assumed for P <0.05. Results: When compared with intact group, both Screw and Empty Ream groups showed a significant reduction in peak torque, energy and angular displacement (P < 0.05). No statistical differences were noted between Screw and Empty Ream group for all measured values (Table 1). Conclusion: Drilling an 8mm unicortical hole for subpectoral biceps tenodesis reduces the torsional load to failure of the proximal humerus at time zero. Placing a PEEK tenodesis screw alone does not appear to increase the strength of the humerus.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207