Sternal plating for primary and secondary sternal closure; can it improve sternal stability?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sternal instability with mediastinitis is a very serious complication after median sternotomy. Biomechanical studies have suggested superiority of rigid plate fixation over wire cerclage for sternal fixation. This study tests the hypothesis that sternal closure stability can be improved by adding plate fixation in a human cadaver model. METHODS: Midline sternotomy was performed in 18 human cadavers. Four sternal closure techniques were tested: (1) approximation with six interrupted steel wires; (2) approximation with six interrupted cables; (3) closure 1 (wires) or 2 (cables) reinforced with a transverse sternal plate at the sixth rib; (4) Closure using 4 sternal plates alone. Intrathoracic pressure was increased in all techniques while sternal separation was measured by three pairs of sonomicrometry crystals fixed at the upper, middle and lower parts of the sternum until 2.0 mm separation was detected. Differences in displacement pressures were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA and Regression Coefficients. RESULTS: Intrathoracic pressure required to cause 2.0 mm separation increased significantly from 183.3 +/- 123.9 to 301.4 +/- 204.5 in wires/cables alone vs. wires/cables plus one plate respectively, and to 355.0 +/- 210.4 in the 4 plates group (p < 0.05). Regression Coefficients (95% CI) were 120 (47-194) and 142 (66-219) respectively for the plate groups. CONCLUSION: Transverse sternal plating with 1 or 4 plates significantly improves sternal stability closure in human cadaver model. Adding a single sternal plate to primary closure improves the strength of sternal closure with traditional wiring potentially reducing the risk of sternal dehiscence and could be considered in high risk patients.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".