A synthetic bone insert may protect the lateral cortex and fixation plate following a high tibial osteotomy by reducing the tensile strains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of a synthetic bone insert on improving medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy integrity in response to post-surgical cyclical loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy, secured with a compression fixation plate, was performed on 12 cadaveric knee specimens that were randomised to either: (1) a synthetic insert condition (n = 6), in which a 9 mm bio-absorbable wedge was inserted into the gap space; or (2) a plate-only condition (n = 6). Uniaxial strain gauges, placed on the lateral cortex and fixation plate, measured the strain response as the specimens were subjected to a staircase cyclical loading protocol; a sinusoidal waveform between 100 and 800 N was applied and increased by increments of 200 N every 5000 cycles until failure. Peak strains at failure were compared between conditions using a one-tailed independent samples t test. RESULTS: The strains from the fixation plate were significantly different between the insert and plate only conditions (p = 0.02), transitioning from a compressive strain with the wedge (mean [SD] = - 8.6 [- 3.6] µε) to a tensile strain without the wedge (mean [SD] = 12.9 [23] µε). The strains measured at the lateral cortex were also significantly affected by the inclusion of a synthetic bone insert (p = 0.016), increasing from - 55.6 (- 54.3) µε when the insert was utilised to 23.7 (55.7) µε when only the plate was used. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a synthetic insert limited the tensile strains at the plate and lateral cortex, suggesting that this may protect these regions from fracture during prolonged loading.
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".