Principles of Locking Plate Fixation of Proximal Humerus Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proximal humerus fractures are common, particularly in elderly patients and those with osteopenia or osteoporosis. Although nonsurgical management results in satisfactory outcomes for most patients, surgical treatment is indicated in select cases. Despite an increasing trend toward arthroplasty, open reduction and internal fixation of proximal humerus fractures can still provide excellent clinical outcomes. Proper technique for internal fixation of the proximal humerus requires an understanding of osseous and neurovascular anatomy. In particular, understanding reliable regions of biomechanically superior bone can help prevent failure of fixation. Biomechanical studies have shown that locked plating of proximal humerus fractures provides stable fixation. Cadaveric and finite element models underscore the importance of screw placement in the posteromedial metaphysis. When medial column support is challenging to obtain, or when bone quality is poor, augmentation with bone autograft, allograft, and/or synthetic composites can improve the biomechanics of internal fixation constructs. The purpose of this review is to outline the anatomic, biologic, and biomechanical principles of plate fixation for proximal humerus fractures to provide evidence-based recommendations for optimizing fixation and preventing fixation failure.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".