Arthrodesis of the Equine Proximal Interphalangeal Joint: A Mechanical Comparison of 2 Parallel 5.5 mm Cortical Screws and 3 Parallel 5.5 mm Cortical Screws
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the biomechanical characteristics and mode of failure of 2 techniques using parallel 5.5 mm screws for pastern joint arthrodesis in horses. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized block design, for horse (1-5), method of fixation (two 5.5 mm screws versus three 5.5 mm screws), side (right, left), and end (front, hind). Constructs were tested to failure in 3-point bending. SAMPLE POPULATION: Twenty limbs (5 cadavers). METHODS: A combined aiming device was used to facilitate screw placement. Two parallel 5.5 mm screws were inserted in lag fashion in 1 limb of a pair, and three 5.5 mm screws were inserted in the contralateral limb. Constructs were then tested in 3-point bending in a dorsal-to-palmar (plantar) direction using a materials testing machine at a loading rate of 19 mm/s. Maximal bending moment at failure and stiffness were obtained from bending moment-angular deformation curves. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between two and three 5.5 mm screw constructs for bending moment and stiffness (P<.05). All constructs ultimately failed by bone fracture or screw bending. For proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint arthrodesis constructs loaded in 3-point bending, no significant effect of treatment, side, or end on maximal bending moment or stiffness was detected. CONCLUSIONS: Two 5.5 mm cortical screws inserted in parallel should provide a surgically simpler and equally strong PIP joint arthrodesis compared with three 5.5 mm cortical screws. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Two 5.5 mm cortical screws inserted in parallel for PIP joint arthrodesis should perform similarly under conditions used in this study, as three 5.5 mm screws inserted in a similar manner, when loaded under bending.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".