A Biomechanical Study of Tuberosity-Based Locked Plate Fixation Compared with Standard Proximal Humeral Locking Plate Fixation for 3-Part Proximal Humeral Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One of the main shortcomings of current proximal humeral plate designs is their inability to reliably secure the greater tuberosity (GT) or lesser tuberosity, leading to fixation failure, nonunion, and rotator cuff dysfunction. Traditional proximal humeral locking plates (PHLPs) rely on isolated screw fixation or suture repair to maintain reduction of the greater and/or lesser tuberosities. This study evaluates a tuberosity-based plate (TBP) specifically designed to improve tuberosity fixation, which may decrease tuberosity displacement and related clinical sequelae. METHODS: Five cadaveric specimens (10 shoulders) were randomized to receive either standard PHLP or TBP fixation. The specimens were skeletonized except for the rotator cuff insertion on the GT. A reproducible 3-part osteotomy was performed for each cadaver, creating head, shaft, and GT segments. Anatomic reduction and plate fixation were performed according to the surgical technique guide for each plate system, with an equal number of screws placed in each plate both proximally and distally. GT fixation was enhanced with standardized suture augmentation through the rotator cuff in every specimen in both groups. In each trial, fracture displacement, load to failure, number of cycles endured, and mechanism of failure were noted. RESULTS: The mean load to tuberosity fixation failure for the PHLP and TBP groups was 220 and 502 N (P = 0.005), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The TBP had a significantly higher load to failure and significantly lower mean fracture displacement compared with the PHLP.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".