Minimally Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis for Extra-articular Distal Radius Fracture in Postmenopausal Women: Longitudinal versus Transverse Incision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This work aimed to compare two mini-invasive palmar approaches (longitudinal and transverse) to osteosynthesize fractures of the distal radius. The main hypothesis was that the longitudinal technique gave smaller incisions. The secondary hypothesis was that the longitudinal technique would be better for the recovery of pain, functional scores, strength, and mobility. Materials and Methods The series included 30 extra-articular distal radius fractures in 30 patients (average age: 74 years) fixed with volar locking plate using a mini-invasive technique. Fifteen of these patients had a single longitudinal surgical approach (Group I), and 15 had a transverse approach that was completed with a longitudinal incision for the proximal screws (Group II). Results The combined average incision size was 14.73 mm in Group I and 19.8 mm in Group II. After 6 months, the pain was on average 1.4/10 (Group I) and 0.46/10 (Group II), the quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand was 13.63/100 (Group I) and 2.8/100 (Group II), Patient-Related Wrist Evaluation was 11.8/100 (Group I) and 5.97/100 (Group II), grip strength was 81.06% (Group I) and 72.13% (Group II), flexion was 88.13% (Group I) and 75% (Group II), extension was 86% (Group I) and 64.6% (Group II), ulnar inclination was 89% (Group I) and 78.67% (Group II), radial inclination was 89.73% (Group I) and 79.93% (Group II), pronation was 96.67% (Group I) and 81.46% (Group II), and supination was 91.93% (Group I) and 79.87% (Group II). Clinical Relevance The longitudinal technique gave smaller incisions than the transverse technique. Among the secondary hypotheses, all the variables were better with the longitudinal technique, except the pain, although without any significant difference.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".