ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2020
A biomechanical comparison of two screw fixation methods in a Letenneur type I Hoffa fracture.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimizing fixation in medial distal femur fractures: A biomechanical study.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2026Article
- Biomechanical comparison of four different internal fixation constructs applied to stabilise Letenneur type I Hoffa fractures: a finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Plate-augmented fixation of comminuted Letenneur type II Hoffa fractures provides favorable stability compared to isolated posteroanterior screw fixation - a biomechanical study.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
- Magnesium versus titanium headless compression screws for fixation of a Hoffa-type fracture - a biomechanical in-vitro study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Novel CT-based classification of Hoffa fracture and optimal treatment strategies.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Fragment size of lateral Hoffa fractures determines screw fixation trajectory: a human cadaveric cohort study.Acta orthopaedica · 2024Article
- The effect of screw orientation on internal fixation of Letenneur type II Hoffa fractures: a biomechanics study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Application of the suture anchor in the treatment of Hoffa fractures of the lateral femoral condyle.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- Locking Plate Alone or in Combination with Cannulated Screws for Hoffa Fractures: A Retrospective Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe treatment of Hoffa fractures is challenging, for which the ideal fixation and approach are still controversial. Osteosynthesis with plate or screws fixation in different trajectories have been described in previous literature. The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical strength and stability of two types of screw trajectories used to stabilize displaced coronal fractures of the lateral femoral condyle.
methodsSixteen synthetic femurs (Sawbones Pacific Research Laboratories, Vashon, WA) were divided into two groups. A vertical osteotomy was performed to mimic a Letenneur type I Hoffa fracture. Group A (n = 8) was fixed with screw in anteroposterior direction (A-P) screws. Group B (n = 8) was fixed with crossed screws. Both groups were tested with a nondestructive axial compression aligned with the femur axis. After that, 10,000 cyclic loading tests were applied to the specimen with a force ranging between 200 to 600 N, and the interfragmental displacement was recorded, respectively, after 10, 100, 1000 and 10,000 cycles. Finally, a destructive axial compression test was applied until catastrophic failure.
resultsThere were no statistical between-group differences in regard to the average axial stiffness, interfragmental displacement, and ultimate failure load. The average axial stiffness of the A-P screw was comparable to that of the crossed screw (361 ± 113 N/mm vs. 379 ± 65 N/mm, p = 0.753). All specimens completed the entire cyclic loading test without catastrophic failure, and the interfragmental displacement after loading for 10,000 cycles was 1.36 ± 0.40 mm for the A-P screw and 1.29 ± 0.61 mm for the crossed screw, there were no statistical differences between the groups (p = 0.823). The average ultimate failure loads for the A-P and crossed screws were 1214 ± 127 N and 1109 ± 156 N, respectively (p = 0.172).
conclusionsBased on our in vitro study, the crossed screws can provide comparable mechanical performance as traditional A-P screws in Hoffa fracture fixation. Considering the screws trajectories are commonly determined by the choice of surgical approach, the current study provides support from a biomechanical perspective for the application of crossed screws in direct lateral approach.
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.