RESUMEN
Background Currently, there are no tests that have been proven to be capable of rating an individual's grip force measurement as sincere or insincere. However, different parameters have been found to vary in grip force testing for maximal versus submaximal effort. A novel data analysis and processing approach might be key to improving these measurements. This study explores the use of a machine learning (ML) algorithm as a means to more accurately determine the sincerity or insincerity of grip force testing. The ML algorithm compares the hand's load distribution pattern with the information generated using conventional statistical methods. Methodology This study uses manugraphy data collected as part of a previous investigation that analyzed load distribution patterns of the right and left hands of 54 healthy subjects. The subjects underwent grip force testing using maximal or submaximal effort, and the percentage contributions of each of the seven defined anatomical areas of the hand were calculated with respect to the total load applied. The predictions based on the load distribution and its use for rating individual grip force measurements as sincere or insincere were compared with the results of conventional statistical methods (thresholds for a bi-manual area-to-area comparison) and an ML algorithm. Results Based on an area-to-area comparison, our method achieved a sensitivity of 54% and a specificity of 78% to detect insincere effort. A predictive ML model developed using these data was capable of recognizing submaximal effort based on the hand's load distribution pattern, determining a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 99%. Conclusions Compared to conventional methods, the use of an ML algorithm considerably improved the validity of manugraphy results in discerning the sincerity or insincerity of grip effort.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: With greater technological developments in the care of musculoskeletal patients, we are entering an era of rapid change in our understanding of the pathophysiology of traumatic injury; assessment and treatment of polytrauma and related disorders; and treatment outcomes. In developed countries, it is very likely that we will have algorithms for the approach to many musculoskeletal disorders as we strive for the best approach with which to evaluate treatment success. This debate article is founded on predictions of future health care needs that are solely based on the subjective inputs and opinions of the world's leading orthopedic surgeons.Hence, it functions more as a forum-based rather than a scientific-based presentation. This exposé was designed to stimulate debate about the emerging patients' needs in the future predicted by leading orthopedic surgeons that provide some hint as to the right direction for orthopedic care and outlines the important topics in this area. DISCUSSION: The authors aim to provide a general overview of orthopedic care in a typical developed country setting. However, the regional diversity of the United States and every other industrialized nation should be considered as a cofactor that may vary to some extent from our vision of improved orthopedic and trauma care of the musculoskeletal patient on an interregional level.In this forum, we will define the current and future barriers in developed countries related to musculoskeletal trauma, total joint arthroplasty, patient safety and injuries related to military conflicts, all problems that will only increase as populations age, become more mobile, and deal with political crisis. SUMMARY: It is very likely that the future will bring a more biological approach to fracture care with less invasive surgical procedures, flexible implants, and more rapid rehabilitation methods. This international consortium challenges the trauma and implants community to develop outcome registries that are managed through health care offices and to prepare effectively for the many future challenges that lie in store for those who treat musculoskeletal conditions.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Open reduction and internal fixation of radial neck fractures can lead to secondary loss of reduction and nonunion due to insufficient stability. Nevertheless, there are only a few biomechanical studies about the stability achieved by different osteosynthesis constructs. METHODS: Forty-eight formalin-fixed, human proximal radii were divided into 6 groups according to their bone density (measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry). A 2.7-mm gap osteotomy was performed to simulate an unstable radial neck fracture, which was fixed with 3 nonlocking implants: a 2.4-mm T plate, a 2.4-mm blade plate, and 2.0-mm crossed screws, and 3 locking plates: a 2.0-mm LCP T plate, a 2.0-mm 6x2 grid plate, and a 2.0-mm radial head plate. Implants were tested under axial (N/mm) and torsional (Ncm/ degrees ) loads with a servohydraulic materials testing machine. RESULTS: The radial head plate was significantly stiffer than all other implants under axial as well as under torsional loads, with values of 36 N/mm and 13 Ncm/ degrees . The second-stiffest implant was the blade plate, with values of 20 N/mm and 6 Ncm/ degrees . The weakest implants were the 2.0-mm LCP, with values of 6 N/mm and 2 Ncm/ degrees , and the 2.0-mm crossed screws, with values of 18 N/mm and 2 Ncm/ degrees . The 2.4-mm T plate, with values of 14 N/mm and 4 Ncm/ degrees , and the 2.0-mm grid plate, with values of 8 N/mm and 4 Ncm/ degrees came to lie in the midfield. CONCLUSIONS: The 2.0-mm angle-stable plates-depending on their design-allow fixation with comparable or even higher stability than the bulky 2.4-mm nonlocking implants and 2.0-mm crossed screws.