ArticleMusculoskeletal surgery2022
Biomechanics of external fixator of distal radius fracture, a new approach: Mutifix Wrist.
Article in Musculoskeletal surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Delta external fixation as a suitable option for definitive fixation of osteoporotic pilon fractures in biomechanics: a finite element analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Finite Element Analysis of Von Mises Stress in External Fixators for Open Tibial Fractures: A Comparative Study of ASTM F1541-02 and Tibia-Based Models in Indonesian Patients.Healthcare technology lettersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to assess factors affecting fixator stiffness with a finite element model and an experimental validation with particular attention to a new fixator device named Mutifix Wrist MATERIALS AND
methodMechanical tests were carried out to determine the stiffness of the construct with different configurations. The obtained results were compared to those obtained with the Hoffmann II Compact (Howmedica-Osteonics Inc. Rutherford, NJ, USA). Data were sampled at 20 Hz and test speed was 0.05 mm/s. For each loading condition, tests were performed four times. A FEM campaign was also conducted to analyze how geometrical variables (type of configuration and K-wire diameter) affect both stiffness and stress distribution of the fixator.
resultsStiffness, axial displacement, magnitude of the displacement, magnitude and localization of the peak stress of the construct were all analyzed. Axial compression tests showed that the axial displacement reached by the machine actuator when the measured force reached 45 N was 0.56 mm ± 0.13 on average. Magnitude of the displacement along with peak stress magnitude and localization varied through the several configuration tested, but it resulted that the distal pin near the fracture gap was the more stressed one in all cases except those in which the fracture line is crossed.
conclusionsFrom the tests performed, it emerged that the addiction of a K-wire provides a construct stiffening and a consequent local stress reduction; while span increase reduces stiffness and increase the local stress. If a K-wire is implanted through the fracture site, the axial stiffness is significantly increased.
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.