Biomechanical analysis using FEA and experiments of a standard plate method versus three cable methods for fixing acetabular fractures with simultaneous THA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acetabular fractures potentially account for up to half of all pelvic fractures, while pelvic fractures potentially account for over one-tenth of all human bone fractures. This is the first biomechanical study to assess acetabular fracture fixation using plates versus cables in the presence of a total hip arthroplasty, as done for the elderly. In Phase 1, finite element (FE) models compared a standard plate method versus 3 cable methods for repairing an acetabular fracture (type: anterior column plus posterior hemi-transverse) subjected to a physiological-type compressive load of 2207N representing 3 x body weight for a 75kg person during walking. FE stress maps were compared to choose the most mechanically stable cable method, i.e. lowest peak bone stress. In Phase 2, mechanical tests were then done in artificial hemipelvises to compare the standard plate method versus the optimal cable method selected from Phase 1. FE analysis results showed peak bone stresses of 255MPa (Plate method), 205MPa (Mears cable method), 250MPa (Kang cable method), and 181MPa (Mouhsine cable method). Mechanical tests then showed that the Plate method versus the Mouhsine cable method selected from Phase 1 had higher stiffness (662versus 385N/mm, p=0.001), strength (3210versus 2060N, p=0.009), and failure energy (8.8versus 6.2J, p=0.002), whilst they were statistically equivalent for interfragmentary sliding (p≥0.179) and interfragmentary gapping (p≥0.08). The Plate method had superior mechanical properties, but the Mouhsine cable method may be a reasonable alternative if osteoporosis prevents good screw thread interdigitation during plating.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".