Does Trochanteric Step Osteotomy Provide Greater Stability Than Classic Slide Osteotomy? A Preliminary Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of a trochanteric slide osteotomy needs a partial weightbearing period to allow safe healing of the osteotomy. We compared the initial rigidity of fixation of the trochanteric slide osteotomy with that of a newly developed technique, the trochanteric step osteotomy. The slide and step osteotomies were tested on six bilateral pairs of cadaveric femora with cyclic shear load of constant amplitude for 100 cycles in both a superior direction to represent standing and 60 degrees of hip flexion to represent a squat stance. Translational and rotational migration and cyclic amplitude were measured with an optoelectronic camera system. During superior loading, translational migration of the slide osteotomy was greater than for the step osteotomy (slide median, 1.7 mm; step median, 0.3 mm), but rotational migration was not (slide median, 1.9 degrees; step median, 0.2 degrees ). Translational amplitude was greater for the slide osteotomy in the superior direction (median slide, 0.3 mm; median step, 0.16 mm), but not in rotational amplitude. Similar trends in migration and amplitude were observed for the squat loading configuration. The data suggest the trochanteric step osteotomy is a more stable construct than the commonly performed slide osteotomy.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".