Do working length and proximal screw density influence the velocity of callus formation in distal tibia fractures treated with a medial bridge plate?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Aim of our study was to evaluate the influence of working length and screw density on callus formation in distal tibial fractures fixed with a medial bridge plate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 42 distal tibia fractures treated with a bridge plate were analyzed. Minimum follow-up was 12 months. mRUST score (modified Radiographic Union Scale for Tibial fractures) was used to assess callus formation. Working length and screw density were measured from post-operative radiographs. RESULTS: 39 (92.9%) fractures healed uneventfully. 32 (76.19%) patients showed signs of early callus formation 3 months post-surgery. In these patients a lower screw density was used compared to patients who didn't show early callus (33.4 vs. 26.6; p = 0.04). No differences was noticed in working length. CONCLUSION: Bridge plate osteosynthesis is a good treatment option in distal tibia fractures. In our series increasing the working length was not associated with a faster callus formation in distal tibia fractures. Conversely, a lower screw density proximally to the fracture site was associated to a faster callus growth.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".