Locked plate fixation of the comminuted distal fibula: a biomechanical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of locked versus nonlocked lateral fibular bridge plating of comminuted, unstable ankle fractures in a mode of catastrophic failure. METHODS: We created comminuted Weber C fractures in 8 paired limbs from fresh cadavers. Fractures were plated with either standard or locked one-third tubular bridge plating techniques. Specimens were biomechanically evaluated by external rotation to failure while subjected to a compressive load approximating body weight. We measured the angle to failure, torque to failure, energy to failure and construct stiffness. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in construct stiffness or other biomechanical properties between locked and standard one-third tubular plating techniques. CONCLUSION: We found no difference in biomechanical properties between locked and standard bridge plating of a comminuted Weber C fibular fracture in a model of catastrophic failure. It is likely that augmentation of fixation with K-wires or transtibial screws provides a construct superior to locked bridge plating alone. Further biomechanical and clinical analysis is required to improve understanding of the role of locked plating in ankle fractures and in osteoporotic bone.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".