Triceps insertion violation from commonly applied olecranon plating system: a comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Surgeons generally avoid compromising tendon insertions during fracture fixation; however, it is a common practice to violate the triceps tendon insertion during olecranon plate fixation. The assumption in these procedures is that minimal triceps insertion is disrupted. The purpose of this study was to quantify the degree of triceps insertion that is violated, intentionally peeled off, by commonly utilized olecranon plating systems. The secondary objectives are to measure the surface area of the triceps insertion and olecranon using a 3-dimensional (3D) technique and compare them to 2 similar papers that were done using 2-dimensional (2D) measurements. Evaluating the amount of olecranon plates' violation to the triceps insertion was not one of the objectives of those papers. It was hypothesized that olecranon plate fixation violates a larger portion of the triceps footprint than previously thought. Methods: Six olecranon plate designs and 12 cadaveric upper-extremity specimens were used. Olecranon plates, triceps insertion footprints, and olecranon surface areas were digitized as 3D surface models with a laser scanner (SG100; ShapeGrabber Inc., Ottawa, Canada). The violated triceps insertion footprint area, required to accommodate the plate surface on the olecranon, was calculated using 3D modeling software (MeshLab; ISTI - CNR Research Center, Pisa, Italy). Results were compared with both 2D and 3D measurements and the 2D surface area measurements of 2 previous studies. Results: ) by 2D and 3D methods, respectively. Conclusions: Many commonly used olecranon plating systems violate a large portion of the triceps insertion footprint which is up to 62% in this study. A better understanding of the triceps insertion footprint, olecranon anatomy, and clinical implications of triceps footprint disruption may lead to improvements in olecranon plate design and postoperative outcomes. Future studies should assess the possibility of any clinical implications of triceps insertion disruption.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".