Intraoperative Torque Test to Assess Syndesmosis Instability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND:: In this cadaveric study, a new "torque test" (TT) stressing the fibula posterolaterally under direct visualization was compared with the classical external rotation stress test (ERT) and lateral stress test (LST). METHODS:: The anteroinferior tibiofibular ligament (AiTFL), the interosseous membrane (IOM), and the posteroinferior tibiofibular ligament (PiTFL) were sectioned sequentially on 10 fresh-frozen human ankles. At each stage of dissection, instability was assessed using the LST, ERT, and TT under direct visualization. Anatomical tibiofibular diastasis measurements were taken directly on cadavers and compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS:: All 3 tests showed statistically significant motion in the syndesmosis when at least 2 ligaments were sectioned. The mean increase across diastasis with a 2-ligament section was 3.0 mm ( P = .005), 3.2 mm ( P = .005), and 4.8 mm ( P = .005) for the LST, ERT, and TT, respectively. The largest mean increase in diastasis was obtained with a complete injury using the TT and was 6.2 mm ( P = .008). With the TT, a 3.5-mm tibiofibular diastasis was 90% sensitive and 100% specific when 2 or more syndesmotic ligaments were sectioned. CONCLUSION:: The TT was a more sensitive and specific tool for detecting syndesmosis instability than classic LST and ERT. CLINICAL RELEVANCE:: Stressing the fibula in a posterolateral direction created a larger distal tibiofibular diastasis, which would be easier to detect in the intraoperative setting. The TT was more sensitive and specific to detecting a 2-ligament syndesmotic injury than the classic test and required less force to perform.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".