Biomechanical analysis of the cephalomedullary nail versus the trochanteric stabilizing plate for unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unstable intertrochanteric fractures are commonly treated with a cephalomedullary nail due to high failure rates with a sliding hip screw. The Omega3 Trochanteric Stabilizing Plate is a relatively new device that functions like a modified sliding hip screw with a proximal extension; however, its mechanical properties have not been evaluated. This study biomechanically compared a cephalomedullary nail, that is, Gamma3 Nail against the Omega3 plate. Unstable intertrochanteric fractures were created in 24 artificial femurs. Experimental groups were as follows: Nail (i.e. Gamma3 Nail) (n = 8), Plate A (i.e. Omega3 plate with four distal non-locking screws and no proximal locking screws) (n = 8), Plate B (i.e. Plate A plus five proximal locking screws) (n = 8), Plate C (i.e. Omega3 plate with three distal locking screws and no proximal locking screws) (n = 8), and Plate D (i.e. Plate C plus five proximal locking screws) (n = 8). All specimens were stiffness tested, while the Nail and Plate D groups were also strength tested. For lateral bending, Plate B was less stiff than the Nail (p = 0.001) and Plate A (p = 0.009). For torsion, Plate A was less stiff than Plate D (p = 0.020). For axial compression, the Nail was less stiff than Plate A (p = 0.036) and Plate B (p = 0.008). Axial strength for the Nail (5014 ± 308 N) was 66% higher than the Plate D construct (2940 ± 411 N) (p < 0.001). All Nails failed by partial or complete cutout through the femoral head and neck, but Plate D failed by varus collapse and deformation of the lag screw. When the cephalomedullary nail is clinically contra-indicated, this study supports the use of the Omega3 plate, since it had similar stiffness in three test modes to the Gamma3 Nail, but had lower strength. Stability of Omega3 plate constructs was not improved with locked fixation proximally or distally.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".