The Influence of the Number of Cortices of Screw Purchase and Ankle Position in Weber C Ankle Fracture Fixation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Biomechanical and clinical studies have shown that syndesmosis screws may be indicated in repairing Weber C ankle fractures. This study sought to determine the effect of the number of cortices of screw purchase and ankle position on syndesmosis width and tibiotalar rotation in Weber C ankle fracture fixation. METHODS: Nine pairs of human cadaver legs were mechanically tested to determine syndesmosis width and tibiotalar rotation. This was done for intact specimens and after a Weber C injury was created and repaired with 3 and 4 cortices of purchase. Tests were performed for no axial load and for axial loads of 700 N with and without external torques of 1 and 5 Nm on the ankle. Torque-to-failure tests were also done for 4 cortices of fixation. RESULTS: In comparison to baseline, the syndesmosis width was significantly decreased when the syndesmosis screw was inserted in plantarflexion with either 0 or 1 Nm of torque. Syndesmosis width significantly increased when the screw was inserted in dorsiflexion for 5 Nm of torque. For tibiotalar rotation, no statistical differences were detected for either plantarflexion or dorsiflexion when compared to baseline, except with axial load. Syndesmosis width was not affected by the number of cortices purchased by the syndesmosis screw. Failure torque and failure angle were also measured. CONCLUSIONS: Because no difference was seen between 3 or 4 cortices, it is the surgeon's choice in determining how many cortices of fixation are achieved.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".