Biomechanical Testing of a 3-Hole Versus a 4-Hole Sliding Hip Screw in the Presence of a Retrograde Intramedullary Nail for Ipsilateral Intertrochanteric and Femur Shaft Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to compare a 3-hole versus a 4-hole sliding hip screw (SHS) in the presence of a retrograde intramedullary (RIM) nail for fixing intertrochanteric and comminuted midshaft femur fractures. METHODS: Mechanical tests were performed on 10 matched pairs of human cadaveric femurs that were osteotomized and then fixed using a 3-hole SHS versus the traditional "gold standard" 4-hole SHS in the presence of an RIM nail. RESULTS: Data showed no differences between the 3-hole SHS with RIM nail versus 4-hole SHS with RIM nail for stiffness (281 ± 127 vs. 260 ± 118 N/mm, P = 0.76), clinical failure at 10 mm of hip displacement (2014 ± 363 vs. 2134 ± 614 N, P = 0.52), or ultimate mechanical failure (3476 ± 776 vs. 3669 ± 755 N, P = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: For this fracture pattern, a 3-hole SHS with RIM nail may be a suitable surgical alternative to the traditional "gold standard" method because it provides the same biomechanical properties while potentially reducing surgical time, blood loss, and hardware used.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".