Flexible Fixation and Fracture Healing: Do Locked Plating ‘Internal Fixators’ Resemble External Fixators?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
External and internal fixators use bone screws that are locked to a plate or bar to prevent periosteal compression and associated impairment of blood supply. Both osteosynthesis techniques rely on secondary bone healing with callus formation with the exception of compression plating of simple, noncomminuted fractures. External fixation uses external bars for stabilization, whereas internal fixation is realized by subcutaneous placement of locking plates. Both of these "biologic" osteosynthesis methods allow a minimally invasive approach and do not compromise fracture hematoma and periosteal blood supply. Despite these similarities, differences between the two fixation methods prevail. Locked plating "internal fixators" allow a combination of biomechanical principles such as buttressing and dynamic compression. Periarticular locking plates are anatomically contoured to facilitate fixation of articular fractures. They allow for subchondral stabilization using small-diameter angular stable screws as well as buttressing of the joint and the metaphyseal component of a fracture. Biomechanically, they can be far stiffer than external fixators, because subcutaneous plates are located much closer to the bone surface than external fixator bars. External fixators have the advantage of being less expensive, highly flexible, and technically less demanding. They remain an integral part of orthopaedic surgery for emergent stabilization, for pediatric fractures, for definitive osteosynthesis in certain indications such as distal radius fractures, and for callus distraction.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".