A biomechanical study of conventional acetabular internal fracture fixation versus locking plate fixation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conventional internal fixation entails the use of an interfragmentary lag screw along with a plate. Not all acetabular fractures are amenable to the placement of an interfragmentary lag screw, and the fracture may be displaced during tightening of the interfragmentary lag screw. Locking plates are a possible solution. We sought to determine whether a locking plate construct can provide stability equivalent to that provided with a conventional construct for transverse acetabular fractures. METHODS: We used 5 paired fresh-frozen cadaveric acetabula. We fixed one side with the conventional technique and the other side with a locking plate. We subjected each fixation to a cyclic compressive force up to 500 cycles, followed by compressive force until failure. We monitored 3-dimensional motion of the fracture. RESULTS: The average fracture gap at 50 N compressive force after 500 loading cycles was 0.41 (standard deviation [SD] 0.49) mm for the conventional plate and lag screw construct compared with 0.76 (SD 0.62) mm for the locked plate construct (p = 0.46). The force to failure, as defined by 2 mm of fracture gap, was 848 (SD 805) N for the conventional plate and lag screw construct compared with 506 (SD 277) N for the locked plate fixation (p = 0.34). CONCLUSION: The locking plate construct is as strong as the conventional plate plus interfragmentary lag screw construct for fixing transverse acetabular fractures. Locking plates may improve management of acetabular fractures by eliminating the need for placement of an interfragmentary lag screw. Furthermore, they may be helpful in revision hip arthroplasty in patients with pelvic discontinuity.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".