Biomechanical Comparison of Pronator Quadratus Repair Techniques in the Modified Henry Approach for Distal Radius Fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Open reduction and volar plate fixation of distal radius fracture frequently involve detaching the pronator quadratus muscle. Repair maybe difficult due to friable muscle fascia or bulky plate. This study evaluates the strength of 3 repair techniques. Methods and Results: Repair with separate Simple Sutures, Continuous Suture, or Suture Anchors was tested on 3 groups of 6 cadaver forearms. A distraction load was applied to all repairs on a traction simulator until there was a failure of either the suture, the muscle or the anchor. Simple Suture group could resist 20.7 N, the Continuous Suture group 33.3 N, and the Suture Anchors group 42.5 N. The load to displacement were, respectively, 20.0, 25.9, and 34.6 N. The mode of failure was noted. Conclusions: This cadaveric study shows that if deemed necessary for soft tissue coverage or for biological aid in fracture healing, suture anchor is the strongest repair choice for pronator quadratus. This conclusion must be weighed against the fact that no in vivo tensile strength value sustained by the pronator quadratus is known in the literature and that simple suture could be sufficient to hold the repaired muscle while the wrist is immobilized postoperatively.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".