ArticleSheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi2019
[Finite element analysis of fixation of U-shaped sacral fractures].
Article in Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Study on quantitative analysis of bracket-induced nonlinear response of labio-cheek soft tissue during the orthodontic process].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2023Article
- Applicable safety analysis and biomechanical study of iliosacral triangular osteosynthesis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
- S2-alar-iliac screw and S1 pedicle screw fixation for the treatment of non-osteoporotic sacral fractures: a finite element study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Finite element method (FEM) was used to investigate the biomechanical properties of three types of surgical fixations of U-shaped sacral fractures. Based on a previously established and validated complete lumbar-pelvic model, three models of surgical fixations of U-shaped sacral fractures were established: ① S1S2 passed through screw (S1S2), ② L4-L5 pedicle screw + screw for wing of ilium (L4L5 + IS), and ③ L4-L5 pedicle screw + S1 passed through screw + screw for wing of ilium (L4L5 + S1 + IS). A 400 N force acting vertically downward, along with torque of 7.5 N·m in different directions (anterior flexion, posterior extension, axial rotation, and axial lateral bending), was exerted on the upper surface of L4. Comparisons were made on differences in separation of the fracture gap and maximum stress in sitting and standing positions among three fixation methods. This study showed that: for values of separation of the fracture gap produced by different operation groups in different positions, L4L5 + S1 + IS was far less than L4L5 + IS and S1S2. For internal fixators, the maximum stress value produced was: L4L5 + IS > L4L5 + S1 + IS > S1S2. For the intervertebral disc, the maximum stress value produced by S1S2 is much larger than that of L4L5 + S1 + IS and L4L5 + IS. In a comprehensive consideration, L4L5 + S1 + IS could be prioritized for fixation of U-shaped sacral fractures. The objective of this research is to compare the biomechanical differences of three different internal fixation methods for U-shaped sacral fractures, for the reference of clinical operation.
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.