Surgical Technique: Anterolateral Approach to the Humerus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although most humeral shaft fractures can be treated nonoperatively, many patients do benefit significantly from surgical treatment. The anterolateral approach to the humerus provides excellent exposure to the humeral shaft, especially to more proximal aspects. In addition, the approach can be extended both proximally and distally, providing the surgeon a dynamic exposure to the humerus for the treatment of fractures and other pathologies. METHODS: This video highlights a clinical case where a mid-shaft humerus fracture was diagnosed and treated with open reduction internal fixation using an 8-hole 4.5-mm limited contact dynamic compression plate through an anterolateral approach. RESULTS: We present indications, anatomic considerations, and surgical techniques used to surgically treat a transverse, mid-shaft humerus fracture through an anterolateral approach. In addition, we demonstrate the use of a push-pull screw to aid in achieving appropriate compression across a fracture site. Using this technique, an anatomic reduction and satisfactory clinical outcome were achieved. CONCLUSIONS: The anterolateral approach to the humerus offers excellent exposure to some humeral shaft fractures, particularly those that lie more proximally. However, its use must be weighed carefully against several other approach options, and the surgeon must account for the specific fracture pattern, as well as their own comfort and familiarity with the approach.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".