Plate Alone Versus Plate and Lag Screw for Lapidus Arthrodesis: A Biomechanical Comparison of Compression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Arthrodesis of the first tarsal metatarsal joint can be accomplished in many ways. The compressive force attained between various constructs remains unclear. This study compares compression achieved through a locking/compression Lapidus plate both with and without the addition of a lag screw. Methods: A dorsal medial Lapidus/locking compression plate (Total Compression Plate System, OrthoPro, Salt Lake City, UT, now Wright Medical) was applied to one cadaveric limb, while the same plate with the addition of a 4.0-mm cannulated lag screw was applied to the contralateral limb for a total of 5 matched pairs of cadaveric specimens. Compressive force was recorded over time and compared between the constructs using a compression sensor (8” FlexiForce Resistive Force Sensor, Phidgets Inc, Calgary, Alberta, Canada). Results: Compression was maintained for 45.4 minutes in the plate only construct, and 317 minutes with the addition of the lag screw ( P = .010). The mean time to 50% peak compression for the plate only construct was 4.90 minutes compared with 15.11 minutes for plate with lag screw construct (P = .012). Conclusion: The addition of a lag screw is recommended for extending the length of compression and possibly reducing nonweightbearing time and the risk of nonunion. Levels of Evidence: Level V
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".