Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
We evaluated the stiffness of external fixation (EF) systems with a reproducible, standardized human pelvic replica of aluminum and perspex in which a type C pelvic ring injury was created. 12 EF systems were analyzed in 2 situations that necessarily occur during a walking cycle. Endpoints were defined as 15 mm of dislocation or tolerance of the maximum load in each situation. In the no weightbearing situation, all except 2 fixators failed; in the weightbearing situation, all fixators failed. Single bar systems performed better than frame configurations. Stability provided by any external fixator is low, and in the case of a type C pelvic ring injury, it is insufficient for patient mobilization and weightbearing. Single bar systems provide more stability than frames.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00016470310013897 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!