The Biomechanics of Ipsilateral Intertrochanteric and Femoral Shaft Fractures: A Comparison of 5 Fracture Fixation Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to examine biomechanically 5 different construct combinations for fixation of ipsilateral intertrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures. METHODS: Twenty-five fresh-frozen adult human femora (age range = 58-91 years, average age = 75.4 years) were tested in physiological bending and in torsion to characterize initial bending and torsional stiffness and stiffness following fixation of combined intertrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures. Five fracture fixation device constructs were assessed-construct A: long dynamic hip screw (long DHS); construct B: reconstruction nail; construct C: DHS plus low-contact dynamic compression plate; construct D: DHS plus retrograde intramedullary nail; and construct E: long intramedullary hip screw. Axial stiffness, torsional stiffness, and axial load-to-failure were the main measurements recorded. RESULTS: There were no differences between constructs in terms of axial stiffness (P = 0.41), external rotation stiffness (P = 0.13), and axial load-to-failure (P = 0.16). However, there was a borderline statistically significant difference in internal rotation stiffness between the constructs (P = 0.048). Specifically, construct C was significantly stiffer than construct E (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: All constructs showed no statistical differences when compared with one another, with the exception of construct E, which provided the least torsional stiffness. However, the current in vitro model did not simulate fracture healing or support offered by soft tissues, both of which would affect the stiffness and load-to-failure levels reached.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".