MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008993073 · doi:10.1503/cjs.030313

Tension plate for treatment of olecranon fractures: new surgical technique and case series study

2015· article· en· W2008993073 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bruno Lukšić, Ivo Jurić, Vladimir Boschi, Zenon Pogorelić, Josip Bekavac

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElbow and Forearm Trauma Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOlecranonInterquartile rangeImplantTension band wiringSurgeryElbow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to determine the effectiveness of a new surgical technique for olecranon fractures using a tension plate (TP) designed by the operating surgeon. METHODS: We included patients with olecranon fractures treated between September 2010 and August 2013 in our study. Treatment involved a new implant and operative technique, which combined the most favourable characteristics of 2 frequently used methods, tension band wiring and plate osteosynthesis, while eliminating their shortcomings. The new method was based on the newly constructed implant. RESULTS: Twenty patients participated in our study. We obtained the following functional results with our TP: median flexion 147.5° (interquartile range [IQR] 130°- 155°), median extension 135°/deficit 10° (IQR 135°-145°), median pronation 90° (IQR 81.3°-90°), median supination 90° (IQR 80°-90°). Implant-related complications were noted in 1 patient, and implants were removed in 3 patients. The mean functional Mayo elbow performance score was 94.8 (range 65-100). The removal of the implant was considerably less frequent in patients operated using the new method and implant than in patients operated using conventional methods at our institution (p < 0.001). Mean duration of follow-up was 8 months. CONCLUSION: Our TP for the treatment of olecranon fractures is safe and effective. Functional results are very good, with significantly decreased postoperative inconveniences and need to remove the implant. Less osteosynthetic material was used for TP construction, but stability was preserved.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of SurgerySame topicElbow and Forearm Trauma TreatmentFrench-language works237,207