The Effect of Working Length, Fracture, and Screw Configuration on Plate Strain in a 3.5-mm LCP Bone Model of Comminuted Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction This study provides a comprehensive examination of plate strain under realistic fracture configurations. The effect of plate working length, plate contact, fracture length, and position on strain was evaluated using bone surrogates subjected to “load-controlled,” nondestructive conditions. Materials and Methods Five 3.5-mm locking compression plates (LCP) were instrumented with six strain gauges. The gauges were glued between holes in predetermined locations marked by laser engraving. Nine fracture models were created using bone surrogate, each representing a combination of the criteria under study: long versus short working length, degree of plate compression, fracture location, and fracture length. All five plates were tested under each of the nine configurations. The constructs were mounted in an Instron testing machine with a 5-kN load cell. Each specimen was cyclically loaded at a rate of 5 mm/min to 50, 100, and 200 N. Results Decreased plate strain was noted with a short plate working length in all fracture configurations (p < 0.05). Increasing the plate working length increased the strain at higher loads and on the plate adjacent to the fracture gap. The size of the fracture gap and fracture location had minimal effects on plate strain (p < 0.05). Elevation of the plate off the bone (1.5 mm) resulted in increased plate strain under all loading conditions (p < 0.05). Conclusion Our null hypothesis was rejected in that a short plate working length resulted in decreased plate strain in all comminuted fracture configurations. Our secondary hypothesis was validated in that elevation of the plate from the bone resulted in increased strain in all configurations. As plate strain identifies regions of mechanical weakness whereby a construct may prematurely fail by acute overload or cyclic fatigue, identifying factors that may increase plate strain allows the surgeon to reduce these variables as much as possible to reduce the incidence of implant failure and subsequent fracture 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".