Biomechanical evaluation of the Nice knot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Nice knot is a bulky double-stranded knot. Biomechanical data supporting its use as well as the number of half hitches required to ensure knot security is lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nice knots with, one, two, or three half-hitches were compared with the surgeon's and Tennessee slider knots with three half hitches. Each knot was tied 10 times around a fixed diameter using four different sutures: FiberWire (Arthrex, Naples, FL), Ultrabraid (Smith and Nephew, Andover, MA), Hi-Fi (ConMed Linvatec, Largo, FL) and Force Fiber (Teleflex Medical OEM, Gurnee, IL). Cyclic testing was performed for 10 min between 10N and 45N, resulting in approximately 1000 cycles. Displacement from an initial 10N load was recorded. Knots surviving cyclic testing were subjected to a load to failure test at a rate of 60 mm/min. Load at clinical failure: 3 mm slippage or opening of the suture loop was recorded. Bulk, mode of ultimate failure, opening of the loop past clinical failure, was also recorded. RESULTS: During cyclic testing, the Nice knots with one or more half-hitches performed the best, slipping significantly less than the surgeon's and Tennessee Slider (P < 0.002). After one half-hitch, the addition of half-hitches did not significantly improve Nice knot performance during cyclic testing (P > 0.06). The addition of half-hitches improved the strength of the Nice knot during the force to failure test, however after two half-hitches, increase of strength was not significant (P = 0.59). While FiberWire was the most bulky of the sutures tested, it also performed the best, slipping the least. CONCLUSION: The Nice knot, especially using FiberWire, is biomechanically superior to the surgeon's and Tennessee slider knots. Two half hitches are recommended to ensure adequate knot security.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".