Biomechanics of plate fixation following traditional olecranon osteotomy versus novel proximal ulna osteotomy for visualizing a distal humerus injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After a distal humeral injury, olecranon osteotomy (OO) is a traditional way to visualize the distal humerus for performing fracture fixation. In contrast, the current authors previously showed that novel proximal ulna osteotomy (PUO) allows better access to the distal humerus without ligamentous compromise. Therefore, this study biomechanically compared plating repair following OO versus PUO. The left or right ulna from eight matched pairs of human cadaveric elbows were randomly assigned to receive OO or PUO and repaired using pre-contoured titanium plates. Destructive and non-destructive mechanical tests were performed to assess stability. Mechanical tests on OO versus PUO groups yielded average results for ulna cantilever bending stiffness at a 90° elbow angle (29.6 vs 30.5 N/mm, p = 0.742), triceps tendon pull stiffness at a 90° elbow angle (28.2 vs 24.4 N/mm, p = 0.051), triceps tendon pull stiffness at a 110° elbow angle (61.9 vs 59.5 N/mm, p = 0.640), and triceps tendon pull failure load at a 110° elbow angle (1070.1 vs 1359.7 N, p = 0.078). OO and PUO elbows had similar failure mechanisms, namely, tendon tear or avulsion from the ulna with or without some fracture of the proximal bone fragment, or complete avulsion of the proximal bone fragment from the plate. The similar biomechanical stability (i.e., no statistical difference for 4 of 4 mechanical measurements) and failure mechanisms of OO and PUO plated elbows support the clinical use of PUO as a possible alternative to OO for visualizing the distal humerus.
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 | 0.001 | 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".