A case series comparing ankle motion during functional activities between syndesmotic screw or suture-button fixation methods for distal tibiofibular syndesmosis instability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injuries can be stabilized with syndesmotic screws or suture-buttons. The objective was to compare ankle motion during gait and a step-down task between patients that had syndesmotic screw or suture-button fixation and healthy adults. This case series included two participants who received a syndesmotic screw and two participants that received a suture-button to fixate the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis. Time from surgery was 2 to 5 years. Ankle angles were measured during gait and a step-down task using an optical motion capture system and force plates. Peak angles and angle waveforms were compared to healthy adults (gait n=56, step-down n=14) using descriptive statistics. There was decreased ankle plantarflexion during gait for one participant that had a syndesmotic screw and one participant that had a suture-button compared to healthy adults. During step-down, there was decreased ankle dorsiflexion in three participants (1 suture-button, 2 syndesmotic screw) and decreased ankle eversion for both participants that had syndesmotic screws. There was no clear pattern of which surgical technique resulted in improved ankle motion. Other factors likely played a role in limiting ankle motion such as injury severity. Future studies should further compare ankle motion during functional activities between these surgical techniques in larger samples.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".