Initial repair strengths of two methods for acute medial collateral ligament injuries of the elbow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purposes of this study were to compare the initial repair strength of the medial collateral ligament (MCL) of the elbow using trans-osseous sutures and suture anchor methods and to determine the effect of repair pretensioning. Twelve, fresh-frozen upper extremities (66 +/- 5 years) were mounted in a valgus-loading system. MCL repairs were performed using trans-osseous suture and suture anchor methods with 20 N or 40 N pretensioning. A cyclic (0.5 Hz), valgus 40 N load was applied 12 cm distal to the elbow axis of flexion. The load was increased by 10 N every 200 cycles until a length increase of 5 mm or catastrophic failure of the repair occurred. Repairs pretensioned with 40 N endured a significantly higher number of cycles and failed at higher loads than those pretensioned with 20 N (p < 0.05). No difference was found in the cycles or load to failure between trans-osseous sutures and suture anchors (p > 0.05). A higher magnitude of pretensioning of MCL repairs was found to increase initial repair strength suggesting that pretensioning should be performed clinically. Despite the comparable failure loads of the trans-osseous suture and suture anchor methods, the failure mechanism differed between the two techniques. The suture anchors usually failed catastrophically when the sutures broke as they passed through the anchor eyelet, while the trans-osseous sutures gradually elongated to the defined failure length by stretching and sliding through the ligament. The use of different suture anchors, suture sizes, or suture materials would likely influence the findings of this study and should be considered when applying these findings clinically.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".