Fixation of Anteromedial Coronoid Facet Fractures: A Biomechanical Evaluation of Plated Versus Screw Constructs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the stability of plate (locking and non-) versus screw constructs in the fixation of these fractures. METHODS: An anteromedial coronoid facet fracture (OTA/AO type 21-B1, O'Driscoll type 2, subtype 3) was simulated in 24 synthetic ulna bones that were then assigned to 3 fracture fixation groups: non-locking plate, locking plate (LP), or screw fixation. Each construct was first cycled in tension (through a simulated medial collateral ligament) and then in compression. They were then loaded to failure (displacement >2 mm). Fracture fragment displacement was recorded with an optical tracking system. RESULTS: During tension testing, a mean maximum fragment displacement of 12 ± 13 and 14 ± 9 μm was seen in the locking and non-locking constructs, respectively. There was no difference in fragment motion between the plated constructs. All screw-only fixed constructs failed during the tension protocol. During compression testing, the mean maximum fragment displacement for the screw-only construct (64 ± 79 μm) was significantly greater than locking (9 ± 5 μm) and non-locking constructs (10 ± 9 μm). During load to failure testing, the maximum load to failure in the screw-only group (316 ± 83 N) was significantly lower than locking (650.4 ± 107 N) and non-locking constructs (550 ± 76 N). There was no difference in load to failure between the plated groups. CONCLUSION: Fixation of anteromedial coronoid fractures (type 2, subtype 3) is best achieved with a plating technique. Although LPs had greater stiffness, they did not offer any advantage over conventional non-LPs with respect to fracture fragment displacement in this study. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Isolated screw fixation showed inferior stability when compared with plate constructs for these fractures. This could result in loss of fracture reduction leading to instability and posttraumatic arthrosis.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".