The ‘Safe Zone’ for Extra-Articular Screw Placement During Intra-Pelvic Acetabular Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Intra-articular screw placement during acetabular surgery must be avoided. To date, no anatomic guidelines exist to prevent intra-articular screw placement in the treatment of complex acetabular fractures by the ilioinguinal or Stoppa approach. METHODS: Ninety-three pelvic computed tomography scans were analyzed and the femoral head diameter (FHD) and the intersacroiliac joint distance (ISIJD) were referenced as anthropometric parameters. A safe zone for screw placement avoiding the acetabulum for specific anatomic landmarks such as the ischial spine, sciatic notch, and obturator canal was defined and correlated to the FHD and ISIJD. RESULTS: The mean FHD was 45.5 mm (standard deviation, 3.96). The mean ISIJD was 117.9 mm (standard deviation, 6.32). The correlation for the distance of the ischial spine in relation to the femoral head diameter was 0.59 (P = 0.0101) and for the ISIJD 0.274 (P = 0.0501). A safe zone of 28 mm from the ischial spine aiming laterally for a FHD greater than 47 mm and 23 mm for a FHD less than 47 mm could be identified. The safe zone for potential screw placement near the sciatic notch was 11 mm (correlation FHD 0.234, P = 0.0501; ISIJD 0.412, P = 0.0101). A safe zone of 5 mm in relative distance of the obturator canal could be determined for screws on the pubic ramus. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies a safe zone for screw placement in the treatment of acetabular fractures when operated by an anterior approach. These findings have the potential to prevent further injury to the acetabular and femoral cartilage as a result of the surgical trauma and minimize intraoperative irradiation time.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".