Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32775200›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedic translation2020

Higher stability and more predictive fixation with the Femoral Neck System versus Hansson Pins in femoral neck fractures Pauwels II.

Clemens Schopper, Ivan Zderic, Johanna Menze, David Müller, Mirko Rocci, Matthias Knobe, Etsuo Shoda, Geoff Richards, Boyko Gueorguiev, Karl Stoffel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedic translation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
11.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Clemens SchopperAO Research Institute Davos, Davos, Switzerland.
Ivan ZdericAO Research Institute Davos, Davos, Switzerland.
Johanna MenzeDePuy Synthes, Zuchwil, Switzerland.
David MüllerDePuy Synthes, Zuchwil, Switzerland.
Mirko RocciDePuy Synthes, Zuchwil, Switzerland.
Matthias KnobeDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Cantonal Hospital Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Etsuo ShodaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hyogo Prefectural Nishinomiya Hospital, Nishinomiya, Japan.
Geoff RichardsAO Research Institute Davos, Davos, Switzerland.
Boyko GueorguievAO Research Institute Davos, Davos, Switzerland.
Karl StoffelUniversity Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
AO Foundation · CHHyogo Prefectural Nishinomiya Hospital · JPUniversity Hospital of Basel · CHUniversity of Lucerne · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the biomechanical performance of the Femoral Neck System (FNS) versus the Hansson Pin System (Hansson Pins) with two parallel pins in a Pauwels II femoral neck fracture model with posterior comminution.

methodsForty-degree Pauwels II femoral neck fractures AO 31-B2.1 with 15° posterior wedge were simulated in fourteen paired fresh-frozen human femora, followed by instrumentation with either FNS or Hansson Pins in pair-matched fashion. Implant positioning was quantified by measuring shortest implant distances to inferior cortex (DI) and posterior cortex (DP) on anteroposterior and axial X-rays, respectively. Biomechanical testing was performed in 20° adduction and 10° flexion with simulated iliopsoas muscle tension. Progressively increasing cyclic loading was applied until construct failure. Interfragmentary femoral head-to-shaft movements were measured with optical motion tracking.

resultsCycles to 10° varus deformation were significantly higher for FNS (23007 ​± ​5496) versus Hansson Pins (17289 ​± ​4686), P ​= ​0.027. Cycles to 10° femoral head dorsal tilting (FNS: 12765 ​± ​3425; Hansson Pins: 13357 ​± ​6104) and cycles to 10° rotation around the femoral neck axis (FNS: 24453 ​± ​5073; Hansson Pins: 20185 ​± ​11065) were comparable between the implants, P ​≥ ​0.314. For Hansson Pins, the outcomes for varus deformation and dorsal tilting correlated significantly with DI and DP, respectively (P ​≤ ​0.047), whereas these correlations were not significant for FNS (P ​≥ ​0.310).

conclusionsFrom a biomechanical perspective, by providing superior resistance against varus deformation and performing in a less sensitive way to variations in implant placement, the angular stable Femoral Neck System can be considered as a valid alternative to the Hansson Pin System for the treatment of Pauwels II femoral neck fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: therapeutic, Level V. THE TRANSLATIONAL POTENTIAL OF THIS ARTICLE: The translational potential of this article is to compare the performance of the FNS with Hansson Pins in a AO 31-B2.1 fracture model featuring a 15 posterior wedge to show the implants behavior concerning the dorsal tilting tendency.

Indexed as

BiomechanicsDorsal tiltingFemoral neck fractureFemoral Neck SystemHansson Pin SystemPosterior comminution

Identifiers

PMID32775200
PMCPMC7387742
OpenAlexW3043974400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.