Olecranon Osteotomy Implant Removal Rates and Associated Complications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study reports on olecranon osteotomy implant removal rates, fixation types, and associated complications. DESIGN: Multicentre case series. SETTING: Patients were identified through an electronic medical database at one Level 1 trauma center and three Level 2 trauma centers. PATIENTS: Two hundred thirty-five patients were identified through the database, of which 92 patients met inclusion criteria. INTERVENTION: Patients underwent olecranon osteotomy for fixation of distal humerus fractures and the implant used was at the surgeon's discretion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: Implant removal rate. RESULTS: Thirty-four of 92 (37.0%) patients underwent removal of implant from their olecranon osteotomy. Implant removal rates were as follows: 28 of the 63 patients for tension band wiring (TBW) (44.4%), 6 of the 18 patients for plates (33.3%), 0 of the 1 patient for cable-pin, and 0 of the 10 patients for osteotomies fixed with a screw fixation. Screw fixation was removed less frequently than TBW (P = 0.01). Screws were less commonly removed than all other fixation types (P = 0.01). TBWs (28/63) were more commonly removed than all other implants (6/29) (P < 0.05). The nonunion rate for olecranon osteotomies was 3.3%. TBWs (18/18) are more likely to be removed for implant irritation than plates. TBWs had an odds ratio of 3.29 for requiring implant removal if they were left >1 mm off of the olecranon tip. CONCLUSION: In this study, 34 of the 92 (37%) patients undergoing an olecranon osteotomy for treatment of a distal humerus fracture required removal of olecranon implant. Screw fixation (0/10) was found to be removed less frequently than TBW fixation 28 of the 63 patients (44.4%). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".