ArticleApplied bionics and biomechanics2016
The Analysis of Biomechanical Properties of Proximal Femur after Implant Removal.
Article in Applied bionics and biomechanics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Re‑fracture risk following implant removal in consolidated hip fractures: a multicenter retrospective cohort study of 575 patients.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Article
- Considerations for removal of cephalomedullary screws and blades following intertrochanteric femoral fracture healing: a narrative review.EFORT open reviews · 2026Review
- Femoral strength after cephalomedullary nail removal can be predicted preoperatively using CT based FE models.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Decreased femoral fracture load after cephalomedullary nail removal : a biomechanical ex vivo study.Bone & joint research · 2025Article
- Refracture After Removal of the PFNA in a Healed Intertrochanteric Femoral Fracture: Case Report.Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation · 2022Article
- Mechanical Analysis after Proximal Femoral Reinforcement with Polymethylmethacrylate in Alternated Double Holes.Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2021Article
- Energy Required for Fracture in Synthetic Proximal Femoral Models After Synthesis Material Removal: a Biomechanical Study Using Cannulated Screws, Dynamic Hip Screws, and Proximal Femoral Nails.Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2021Article
- Corrigendum to "The Analysis of Biomechanical Properties of Proximal Femur after Implant Removal".Applied bionics and biomechanics · 2020Article
- Biomechanical Test after Hip Cannulated Screw Removal (in vitro Analysis).Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2019Article
- Article
- Static bending test after proximal femoral nail (PFN) removal -Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2017Article
- A rare complication of ipsilateral femoral neck fracture after removal of the long Gamma nail in a healed intertrochanteric fracture.Tzu chi medical journalArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction. To compare the biomechanical stability of the femur following the removal of proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA-II) and dynamic hip screw (DHS). Material and Methods. 56 paired cadaveric femurs were used as experimental and control groups. In the experimental group, PFNA-II and DHS were randomly inserted into femurs on both sides and then removed. Thereafter, compression load was applied until fracture occurred; biomechanical stability of the femurs and associated fracture patterns were studied. Results. The ultimate load and stiffness of the control group were 6227.8 ± 1694.1 N and 990.5 ± 99.8 N/mm, respectively. These were significantly higher than experimental group (p = 0.014, <0.001) following the removal of PFNA-II (4085.6 ± 1628.03 N and 656.3 ± 155.3 N/mm) and DHS (4001.9 ± 1588.3 N and 656.3 ± 155.3 N/mm). No statistical differences in these values were found between the 2 device groups (p = 0.84, 0.71), regardless of age groups. However, fracture patterns were different between two devices, intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. Conclusions. Mechanical stability of the proximal femurs does not differ after the removal of 2 different of fixation devices regardless of the age. However, it was significantly lower compared to an intact femur. Different fracture patterns have been shown following the removal of different fixation devices as there are variations in the site of stress risers for individual implants.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.