Effect of Complete Syndesmotic Disruption and Deltoid Injuries and Different Reduction Methods on Ankle Joint Contact Mechanics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Syndesmotic injuries can be associated with poor patient outcomes and posttraumatic ankle arthritis, particularly in the case of malreduction. However, ankle joint contact mechanics following a syndesmotic injury and reduction remains poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to characterize the effects of a syndesmotic injury and reduction techniques on ankle joint contact mechanics in a biomechanical model. METHODS: Ten cadaveric whole lower leg specimens with undisturbed proximal tibiofibular joints were prepared and tested in this study. Contact area, contact force, and peak contact pressure were measured in the ankle joint during simulated standing in the intact, injured, and 3 reduction conditions: screw fixation with a clamp, screw fixation without a clamp (thumb technique), and a suture-button construct. Differences in these ankle contact parameters were detected between conditions using repeated-measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: Syndesmotic disruption decreased tibial plafond contact area and force. Syndesmotic reduction did not restore ankle loading mechanics to values measured in the intact condition. Reduction with the thumb technique was able to restore significantly more joint contact area and force than the reduction clamp or suture-button construct. CONCLUSION: Syndesmotic disruption decreased joint contact area and force. Although the thumb technique performed significantly better than the reduction clamp and suture-button construct, syndesmotic reduction did not restore contact mechanics to intact levels. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Decreased contact area and force with disruption imply that other structures are likely receiving more loads (eg, medial and lateral gutters), which may have clinical implications such as the development of posttraumatic arthritis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".