Biomechanical Comparison of Distal Radioulnar Joint Reconstruction Graft Preparation Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Graft preparation techniques for the Adams–Berger distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ) reconstruction vary among surgeons with insufficient evidence to support any specific technique. Questions/Purposes We compared survival with cyclic loading, absolute elongation, elongation rate, and modes of failure of four graft preparation techniques. Methods Fifteen porcine extensor tendons were divided into three equal groups: tendon only; tendon augmented along its full length with nonlocking 2–0 FiberLoop suture spaced at 6 mm intervals; and tendon with suture at 12 mm intervals. Suture only was also tested. Samples were woven through custom radius- and ulna-simulating jigs mounted on a mechanical testing machine. Samples underwent a staircase cyclic loading protocol and were then inspected visually for the mode of failure. Survival with cyclic loading, absolute elongation, and elongation rate was compared. Results Average survival with cyclic loading of suture-augmented tendon was significantly higher than tendon only. All tendon groups had significantly higher survival compared with suture only. Absolute elongation was subject to variability due to initial nonlinear elongation behavior of samples. The elongation rate was significantly lower with suture compared with all tendon groups. Modes of failure included rupture of the tendon and/or suture at the simulated graft–bone interface and elongation of the entire construct without rupture. Conclusions In this biomechanical study, augmentation of porcine tendons with suture spaced at either 6 or 12 mm for DRUJ reconstruction significantly increased survival to a staircase cyclic loading protocol Clinical Relevance For the Adams–Berger reconstruction, tendon grafts augmented along their entire length by nonabsorbable braided suture are biomechanically superior to tendon alone.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".