Biomechanical Analysis of Trochanteric Fracture Fixations Using a Y-Shaped Locking Plate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Clinical evidence suggests that the use of Y-shaped locking plates with anterior and lateral locking screws provide improved primary fixation stability over the use of straight locking plates in the treatment of greater trochanter (GT) fractures. However, it remains unclear how the use of cable cerclages, in replacement or addition to the locking screws, would impact the primary fixation stability. METHODS: Nine surgical fixations were tested on a dynamic test bench through 27 sawbones experiments. These fixations on the GT and bone shaft (BS) included locking screws alone, cable cerclages alone, or 7 combinations of both. Migrations, defined as the remaining movements of the unloaded GT fragment, were measured for all 9 fixations submitted to dynamic stair climbing cycling after an experimental plan. RESULTS: Under dynamic stair climbing conditions: (1) Y-shaped locking plates fixed by locking screws alone (vs cable cerclages alone) significantly reduced GT migrations, (2) adding cable cerclages to screws provided no significant reduction of migrations, and (3) cable cerclages alone can be used on the BS but is not recommended on the GT. CONCLUSIONS: Y-shaped locking plates with anterior and lateral locking screws improved primary stability of GT fractures over fixation with cable cerclages. Cable cerclages provided acceptable primary stability when screw fixations were unachievable but on the BS only.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".