Biomechanical Comparison of Six Suture Configurations Using a Large Diameter Polyester Prosthesis in the Muscular Process of the Equine Arytenoid Cartilage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare biomechanical properties of 6 suture configurations using a large diameter polyester prosthesis in the muscular process (MP) of the arytenoid cartilage and to determine failure mode. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Cadaveric equine larynges (n=121). METHODS: Suture configurations (4 single, 2 double) were inserted, and then constructs were tested in a single-cycle to failure at a 100 mm/min distraction. Load deformation curves were generated to assess the biomechanical properties of each construct. A 1-way ANOVA was used to compare the mean differences in construct failure force, cricoarytenoid joint (CAJ) disarticulation force, and energy stored at failure. A 2-sample t-test was used to compare single versus double suture patterns and a Fisher's exact test was used to compare failure mode. RESULTS: Both construct and CAJ failure force were significantly greater (P<.05) for double suture patterns compared with single suture patterns; however, there were no significant differences in energy stored at construct failure. Failure at the MP accounted for >or=50% of construct failures for 3 of the single suture patterns and 1 of the double suture patterns tested. The remaining 2 patterns had an increased frequency of clamp failures as well as failure of the cricoid cartilage. CONCLUSIONS: Sutures that sufficiently engage the spine of the MP alone or in conjunction with a second suture were found to be biomechanically superior. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Engaging the spine of the MP appears to result in the most biomechanically sound laryngeal construct.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".