Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27122018›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2016

Quantification of cephalomedullary nail fit in the femur using 3D computer modelling: a comparison between 1.0 and 1.5m bow designs.

Beat Schmutz, Jayani Amarathunga, Stanley Kmiec, Prasad Yarlagadda, Michael Schuetz

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Implant fracture of the TFNA femoral nail.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Beat SchmutzInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4059, Australia. b.schmutz@qut.edu.au.
Jayani AmarathungaInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4059, Australia.
Stanley KmiecDePuy Synthes, 1301 Goshen Parkway, West Chester, PA, 19380, USA.
Prasad YarlagaddaSchool of Chemistry, Physics and Mechanical Engineering, Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia.
Michael SchuetzInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4059, Australia.
Queensland University of Technology · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe radius of curvature (ROC) misfit of cephalomedullary nails during anterograde nailing can lead to complications such as distal anterior cortical encroachment. This study quantified the anatomical fit of a new nail with 1.0-m ROC (TFN-ADVANCED(™) Proximal Femoral Nailing System [TFNA]) compared with a nail with 1.5-m ROC (Gamma3 Long Nail R1.5 [Gamma3]).

methodsWe generated 63 three-dimensional models (48 female, 45 right femur) representing the cortical surfaces of the femora (31 Caucasian, 28 Japanese, and 4 Thai). The mean age of the specimens was 77 years (±8.1), and the mean height was 158.5 cm (±9.6). Utilizing a customized software tool, nail fit was determined from the total surface area of nail protrusion from the inner cortex surface and maximum distance of nail protrusion in the axial plane; the position of the distal nail tip within the canal was also determined.

resultsOverall, TFNA had both a significantly smaller mean total surface area of nail protrusion (915.8 vs. 1181.6 mm(2); P < 0.05) and a mean maximum distance of nail protrusion in the axial plane (1.9 vs. 2.1 mm; P = 0.007) when compared with Gamma3. The mean total surface area of nail protrusion was significantly smaller with TFNA versus Gamma3 in both the Caucasian (P = 0.0009) and Asian (Japanese and Thai) samples (P = 0.000002); the mean maximum distance of TFNA protrusion was significantly smaller in Asians (P = 0.04), but not in Caucasians (P = 0.08). Most tip positions for both nail types were anterior, but TFNA had a higher number of center positions than Gamma3 (13 vs. 7) and a shift from the far anterior cortex to the center of the medullary canal (overall and in Caucasians). In Asians, the most prominent position was far anterior for both nails.

conclusionsThe 1.0-m ROC TFNA nail resulted in better fit than the 1.5-m ROC Gamma3 nail. Clinical trials and case studies should be conducted in the future to verify if these findings would also result in clinical improvements.

Indexed as

Bone NailsModels, AnatomicAgedAged, 80 and overComputer SimulationFemaleFemoral FracturesFracture Fixation, IntramedullaryHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalMaleProsthesis DesignProsthesis FittingSoftwareTomography, X-Ray Computed3D modellingCephalomedullaryFemurFracture fixationIntramedullary nailNail fit

Identifiers

PMID27122018
PMCPMC4848874
OpenAlexW2342621971

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.