Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27551574›Full record

ArticleGeriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation2016

Different Stabilization Techniques for Type 62B3 Acetabular Fractures in Combination With Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty in Elderly Patients: A Biomechanical Comparison.

Valentinas Uvarovas, Igoris Šatkauskas, Robertas Urbonavičius, Vytautas Bučinskas, Julius Griškevičius, Vytautas Vengrauskas, Giedrius Petryla, Povilas Masionis, Audrius Andrijauskas, Narūnas Porvaneckas

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact, top 90% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Biomechanical analysis of fixation methods in acetabular fractures: a systematic review of test setups.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Valentinas UvarovasClinic of Rheumatology, Traumatology Orthopaedic and Reconstructive Surgery, Medical Faculty, Centre of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Republican Vilnius University Hospital, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Igoris ŠatkauskasClinic of Rheumatology, Traumatology Orthopaedic and Reconstructive Surgery, Medical Faculty, Centre of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Republican Vilnius University Hospital, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Robertas UrbonavičiusDepartment of Mechatronics and Robotics, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Vytautas BučinskasDepartment of Mechatronics and Robotics, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Julius GriškevičiusDepartment of Biomechanics, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Vytautas VengrauskasDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Republican Vilnius University Hospital, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Giedrius PetrylaDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Republican Vilnius University Hospital, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Povilas MasionisDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Republican Vilnius University Hospital, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Audrius AndrijauskasClinic of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Narūnas PorvaneckasClinic of Rheumatology, Traumatology Orthopaedic and Reconstructive Surgery, Medical Faculty, Centre of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Republican Vilnius University Hospital, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Vilnius University · LTVilnius Gediminas Technical University · LT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe total hip arthroplasty (THA) as part of acute fracture management is used for acetabular fractures in elderly patients. Our objective was to assess the stability of osteosynthesis performed using 2 different techniques in combination with THA in an experimental model. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe conducted 20 experiments using the left-side hemipelves composite bone models. There were 2 testing groups: 1- and 2-stage osteosynthesis. The acetabular fractures of the anterior column and posterior hemitransverse were simulated. The same THA technique was used in both groups. The stability of osteosynthesis was explored and compared between the groups by measuring the fracture displacement of anterior and posterior columns under the standardized test load (1187 N) protocol. Load distance diagrams were generated.

resultsThe 0.680-mm gap (0.518; 1.548) of the posterior column in the 1-stage group (n = 10) was higher than the 0.370-mm gap (0.255; 0.428) in the 2-stage group (n = 10; P = .002). There was no significant difference between the gap of the anterior column in the 1- and 2-stage groups (0.135 [0.078; 0.290] mm vs 0.160 [0.120; 0.210] mm; P = .579).

conclusionThe 2-stage osteosynthesis of the anterior and posterior columns in combination with THA provides better stability of posterior column when compared to 1-stage method in composite bone models.

Indexed as

acetabular fracturebiomechanical testelderly patientsosteoporosisprimary total hip arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID27551574
PMCPMC4976741
OpenAlexW2463501097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.