Can the Use of Variable-Angle Volar Locking Plates Compensate for Suboptimal Plate Positioning in Unstable Distal Radius Fractures? A Biomechanical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the biomechanical stability under load-to-failure conditions of optimally placed fixed-angle volar locking plates versus suboptimally placed variable-angle volar locking plates in unstable, intraarticular distal radius fractures. METHODS: A Melone type 1 (AO 23-C3) fracture was created in 25 sawbone radii and plated with either a fixed-angle or variable-angle Synthes plate with identical profile. Four plate positions were tested: distal ulnar (DU, positioned distally to obtain subchondral support and ulnar to hold the lunate facet fragments), distal radial (DR, 3 mm radial to DU), proximal ulnar (PU, 3 mm proximal to DU), and proximal radial (PR, 3 mm proximal and 3 mm radial to DU). The specimens were loaded until failure as defined by a 2-mm displacement of any fracture fragment. The fixed-angle plates were tested in the DU position, whereas the variable-angle plates were tested in all 4 positions. RESULTS: The dorsal lunate fragment was the first to fail in every group followed by the radial styloid and volar lunate fragments, respectively. Load-to-failure, from greatest to least, occurred at the DR (278 ± 56 N), PR (277 ± 68 N), DU fixed-angle (277 ± 68 N), DU variable-angle (236 ± 31 N), and PU (202 ± 75 N) positions, respectively. Rigidity was calculated using the slope of the dorsal lunate force-displacement curve before failure (at loads 100-150 N). Rigidity was greatest at the PU position (126 ± 60 N/mm) followed by PR (125 ± 30 N/mm), DU fixed-angle (125 ± 25 N/mm), DR (122 ± 66 N/mm), and DU variable-angle (101 ± 35) positions, respectively. Univariate analysis of rigidity and load-to-failure was not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this experimental model, variable-angle screws provided a leeway of 3 mm in both the sagittal and coronal directions without sacrificing construct strength, which may considerably facilitate fixation of these difficult fractures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".