The In Vitro Biomechanics of Locking Plates Used in a Supercutaneous Fashion Compared to a Type Ia External Skeletal Fixator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this study was to determine the biomechanics of a supercutaneously placed String of Pearls plate (SOP) and supercutaneously placed locking compression plate (LCP) to be used in lieu of a type Ia external fixator. Nine surrogate constructs of 3.5 mm SOP, 3.5 mm LCP and type Ia external fixator offset 20 mm from the cortex over a 10-mm fracture gap were tested in non-destructive loading to 200 N and then tested in load to 100% displacement. Maximum displacement was used to calculate median maximum displacement in non-destructive axial compression testing for the SOP, LCP and external fixator, measuring 8.5 mm (interquartile range [IQR] 8.23–8.95), 10.3 mm (IQR 9.99–10.40) and 1.2 mm (IQR 1.17–1.31), respectively. There was a difference between the external fixator to LCP (p = 0.0050), external fixator to SOP (p = 0.0050) and LCP to SOP (p = 0.0050). Maximum load was used in compression to 100% displacement to calculate the median maximum load. The SOP, LCP and external fixator, withstood median loads to 100% displacement of 244 N (IQR 231.83–257.19), 168 N (IQR 165.07–170.86) and 766 N (IQR 688.14–784.29), respectively. There was a difference between external fixator to SOP (p = 0.0047), external fixator to LCP (p ≤ 0.001) and LCP to SOP (p = 0.0024). The type Ia external fixator is significantly stiffer compared with the supercutaneous 3.5 mm SOP and 3.5 mm LCP. Given the low stiffness and high displacement, supercutaneously placed locking plates may be unsuitable for clinical fracture repair in a 20-kg dog with an expected axial load of 200 N.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".