Arthrodesis of the Equine Proximal Interphalangeal Joint: A Biomechanical Comparison of Two Parallel Headless, Tapered, Variable‐Pitched, Titanium Compression Screws and Two Parallel 5.5 mm Stainless‐Steel Cortical Screws
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the biomechanical characteristics, failure mode, and effects of side (left or right limb) and end (forelimb or hindlimb) of different screws in 2-screw, parallel-screw proximal interphalangeal joint arthrodesis constructs in horses. STUDY DESIGN: In vitro experimental study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Twenty limbs from 6 cadavers (4 complete limb sets, 2 partial sets-total of 4 forelimb and 6 hindlimb pairs). METHODS: Two parallel 5.5 mm cortical (AO) screws were inserted in lag fashion in 1 randomly allocated limb of a pair, and 2 parallel headless, tapered, variable-pitched, titanium compression screws (Acutrak-Plus) were inserted in the contralateral limb. Constructs were tested in 3-point bending in a dorsopalmar (plantar) direction using a materials-testing machine at a loading rate of 5.83 mm/s. Maximal bending moment at failure and composite stiffness were calculated from data generated on load-displacement curves. Data were analyzed using a Friedman 2-way analysis of variance and Wilcoxon's signed-rank tests. RESULTS: No significant difference was detected for bending moment or stiffness values in proximal interphalangeal joint arthrodesis constructs using 2 parallel Acutrak-Plus or AO screws for fixation. Mean stiffness values were significantly different between forelimb and hindlimb constructs. CONCLUSIONS: Performance of 2 parallel Acutrak-Plus screws was biomechanically comparable with 2 parallel AO 5.5 mm cortical screws in in vitro pastern arthrodesis constructs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Acutrak-Plus screws may provide an alternative means of fixation for proximal interphalangeal joint arthrodesis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".