ReviewDer Unfallchirurg2017
[Compatibility and allergies of osteosynthesis materials].
Review in Der Unfallchirurg, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhancing recovery and outcomes of sternal closure in cardiac surgery: Early results of a 400-patient comparison of suture tapes and steel wires.JTCVS techniques · 2025Article
- Improving Sternal Closure Outcomes in Cardiac Surgery: Polyethylene Suture Tapes vs. Steel Wires.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Titanium Cable Cerclage Increases the Load to Failure in Plate Osteosynthesis for Distal Femoral Fractures.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Cerclage performance analysis - a biomechanical comparison of different techniques and materials.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- Functional outcomes before and after implant removal in patients with posttraumatic shoulder stiffness and healed proximal humerus fractures: does implant material (PEEK vs. titanium) have an impact? - a pilot study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Metal implants for osteosynthesis are nowadays standard in orthopedic and trauma surgery. Steel implants, especially cerclages, bands and wires, can show more corrosion due to friction and lead to encapsulation in connective tissue with fluid borders even without loosening. Corrosion and fluid borders are potentially more susceptible to incompatibility and infections. Titanium implants have the advantage of better allergic compatibility. Problems may occur in material removal, especially with titanium implants because material fractures occur more frequently. Particularly with fixed angle constructions, the blocking of titanium-titanium bonding and/or screws in bone can occur by adhesion and ingrowth. Apart from single case reports there is no evidence that modern steel implants cause more allergic reactions than titanium; therefore, in the treatment by osteosynthesis the stability, risk of loosening, manifestation of allergies and the possibility of material removal must always be considered.
Indexed as
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.