Biomechanical Consequences of Nail Insertion Point and Anterior Cortical Perforation for Antegrade Femoral Nailing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This biomechanical study assessed the influence of changing antegrade cephalomedullary nail insertion point from anterior to neutral to posterior locations relative to the tip of the greater trochanter with or without anterior cortical perforation in the distal femur. Artificial osteoporotic femurs and cephalomedullary nails were used to create 5 test groups each with 8 specimens: intact femur without a nail or perforation, anterior nail insertion point without perforation, neutral nail insertion point without perforation, posterior nail insertion point without perforation, and posterior nail insertion point with perforation. Nondestructive biomechanical tests were done at 250 N in axial, coronal 3‐point bending, sagittal 3‐point bending, and torsional loading in order to measure overall stiffness and bone stress. The intact femur group vs. all femur/nail groups had lower stiffness in all loading modes ( p ≤ 0.018), as well as higher bone stress in the proximal femur ( p ≤ 0.027) but not in the distal femur above the perforation ( p = 0.096). Compared to each other, femur/nail groups only showed differences in sagittal 3‐point bending stiffness for anterior and neutral vs. posterior nail insertion points without ( p ≤ 0.025) and with perforation ( p ≤ 0.047). Although it did not achieve statistical significance ( p ≥ 0.096), moving the nail insertion point from anterior to neutral to posterior to posterior with perforation did gradually increase bone stress by 45% (proximal femur) and 46% (distal femur). No femur or hardware failures occurred. Moving the nail insertion point and the presence of a perforation had little effect on stiffness, but the increased bone stress may be important as a predictor of fracture. Based on current bone stress results, surgeons should use anterior or neutral nail insertion points to reduce the risk of anterior cortical perforation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".