A CADAVER BIOMECHANICAL COMPARISON OF THE PLATE CONSTRUCT FOR OPEN LAPIDUS FUSION VERSUS PERCUTANEOUS LAPIDUS FUSION USING SUBCHONDRAL FIXATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Tarsometatarsal (TMT) fusions traditionally use bridge plates or compression screws through open incisions to correct deformity and achieve bone healing. A new percutaneous technique can remove cartilage, preserve the subchondral bone and transfix the fusion site. Intraosseus, headless, chamfered, full-thread, non-variable pitch screws are used to transfix all available bone. This study compared the biomechanical properties of the plate construct versus the percutaneous construct. Method: TMT joints of six cadavers (12 limbs) were stabilized with a locking plate and 3.5 mm compression screw on one limb, and with a percutaneous Lapidus construct on the matched limb. An extensometer was placed on the plantar side of the TMT. The first metatarsal was point loaded cyclically from 9 to 90 N at 60 mm from the TMT joint at 3 Hz. Testing was stopped if the extensometer reached 7 mm of plantar gap, or when 250,000 cycles were reached. Specimens were then statically loaded to failure. Results: Percutaneous screw specimens reached more cycles to failure at 226,000 ± 58,000 versus 30,000 ± 52,000 for the open plate construct (p<.001). Plantar gap was higher in the open plate construct at all cycle counts from 10 to 10,000 cycles (>4 mm) versus the percutaneous group (<1 mm). Maximum load was higher in the percutaneous group (343.3 ± 92.8 N versus 247.3 ± 28.3 N) (p<.05). Stiffness of the percutaneous group was higher (40.9 ± 13.4 N/mm versus 16.0 ± 5.3 N/mm) (p<.01). No differences were found in bone quality testing. A Cox proportional hazard model identified the mode of fixation as the only significant covariant (p<.05) in predicting cycles to failure. Conclusion: The percutaneous subchondral fixation fusion construct with full-thread, non-variable pitch, intraosseous screws create a stiffer and stronger fixation construct than dorsal plates and cross-screws.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".