The Effect of Varying Tension of a Suture Button Construct in Fixation of the Tibiofibular Syndesmosis—Evaluation Using Stress Computed Tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: There have been no studies assessing the optimal biomechanical tension of suture button constructs. The purpose of this study was to assess optimal tensioning of suture button fixation and its ability to maintain reduction under loaded conditions using a stress computed tomography (CT) model. METHODS: Ten cadaveric lower limbs disarticulated at the knee were used. The limbs were placed in a modified ankle load frame that allowed for the application of sustained torsional axial or combined torsional/axial loads. The syndesmosis and the deep deltoid ligaments complex were sectioned and the limbs were randomized to receive a suture button construct tightened at 4, 8, or 12 kg. The specimens were loaded under the 3 loading scenarios with CT scans performed after each and at the conclusion of testing. Multiple measurements of translation and rotation were compared with baseline CT scan taken before sectioning. RESULTS: Significant lateral (maximum 5.26 mm) and posterior translation (maximum 6.42 mm) and external rotation (maximum 11.71 degrees) was noted with the 4 kg repair. Significant translation was also seen with both the 8 and the 12 kg repairs; however, the incidence was less than with the 4 kg repair. Significant overcompression (ML = 1.69 mm, B = 2.69 mm) was noted with the 12 kg repair and also with the 8 kg repair (B = 2.01 mm). CONCLUSION: Suture button constructs must be appropriately tensioned to maintain reduction and re-approximate the degree of physiological motion at the distal tibiofibular joint. These constructs also demonstrate overcompression of the syndesmosis; however, the clinical effect of this remains to be determined.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".