Rationale and Options for Choosing an Optimal Closure Technique for Primary Midsagittal Osteochondrotomy of the Sternum, Part 2: A Theoretical and Critical Review of Techniques and Fixation Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The intact one-piece sternum is indispensible to the thorax for its normal physiological biomechanics. To overcome tri-planar forces acting on the sternum following midsagittal osteochondrotomy, it must be reconstructed using an optimal technique to withstand distraction loads of normal respiration and violent cough. It should be fixed rigidly to reconstitute the anterior coronal column of the axial skeleton to maintain erect posture and prevent kyphosis. Sterile or infective non-union of the sternum compromises the physical endurance of patients and has an immense psychological effect. From an engineering perspective, there is no substantially proven gold standard technique to fix a divided sternum. Stainless steel wire applied in various configurations to a variety of shapes and sizes has become an acceptable standard of care due to its long-standing history and cost-effectiveness. Recently there has been a proliferation of innovative techniques to deal with primary and failed union of the sternum in an effort to prevent mechanical failure and serious deep surgical wound infection progressing to mediastinitis. Among the newer implant designs, the ones currently in use are shaped like clamps and clasps to compress the sternal halves together as well as alphabet-shaped mini-plating systems. In this section of the review series, mechanisms, pros and cons of currently available implants to reconstruct the bisected sternum, and external support systems considered necessary in high-risk clients are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".