A pilot hole does not reduce the strains or risk of fracture to the lateral cortex during and following a medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy in cadaveric specimens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim It has been suggested that the use of a pilot-hole may reduce the risk of fracture to the lateral cortex. Therefore the purpose of this study was to determine the effect of a pilot hole on the strains and occurrence of fractures at the lateral cortex during the opening of a high tibial osteotomy (HTO) and post-surgery loading. Materials and Methods A total of 14 cadaveric tibias were randomized to either a pilot hole (n = 7) or a no-hole (n = 7) condition. Lateral cortex strains were measured while the osteotomy was opened 9 mm and secured in place with a locking plate. The tibias were then subjected to an initial 800 N load that increased by 200 N every 5000 cycles, until failure or a maximum load of 2500 N. Results There was no significant difference in the strains on the lateral cortex during HTO opening between the pilot hole and no-hole conditions. Similarly, the lateral cortex and fixation plate strains were not significantly different during cyclic loading between the two conditions. Using a pilot hole did not significantly decrease the strains experienced at the lateral cortex, nor did it reduce the risk of fracture. Conclusions The nonsignificant differences found here most likely occurred because the pilot hole merely translated the stress concentration laterally to a parallel point on the surface of the hole. Cite this article: K. Bujnowski, A. Getgood, K. Leitch, J. Farr, C. Dunning, T. A. Burkhart. A pilot hole does not reduce the strains or risk of fracture to the lateral cortex during and following a medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy in cadaveric specimens. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:166–172. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.72.BJR-2017-0337.R1.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".