Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33866388›Full record

ArticleInternational orthopaedics2021

Comparison of different fixation techniques for periprosthetic fractures: a biomechanical study of a new implant.

Mehmet Nuri Konya, Ugur Yuzuguldu, Recep Altin, Ugur Fidan

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International orthopaedics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 39% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. From bench to bedside: a novel suture-augmented prosthesis for greater trochanteric fixation in osteoporotic hip arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mehmet Nuri KonyaOrthopedics and Traumatology Department, Medical Faculty of Afyonkarahisar Health Science University, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey. nurikonya@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5877-8347
Ugur YuzugulduDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Gülhane Training and Research Hospital , Ankara, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3378-2497
Recep AltinDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Afyonkarahisar State Hospital, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6162-0666
Ugur FidanDepartment of Biomechanical Engineering, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0356-017X
Afyon Kocatepe University · TRGülhane Askerî Tıp Akademisi · TRSağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe ideal treatment method for periprosthetic fractures is controversial due to the risks of current methods. Single-cortex screw fixation in prosthesis may lead to implant failure. Therefore, we aimed to develop an implant that lowers the risk for complications. For this study, we designed and tested two new implant models. The first model was a plate with a combination of U nails and cerclage holes. The second model was a U nail plate with a screw, which combines a plate screw with U nail (staples). Our study aimed to compare the stability of two newly designed implants with classical treatment modalities. We used 27 (in 3 groups) artificial bone models and 9 different test models.

methodsThe ISO 7206-4:2010 (E) standards were used for 27 bones in nine groups tested under laboratory conditions. In our study, we examined nine different groups. In group 1, hip the prosthesis was extracted, and a revision femoral stem was embedded. In group 2, periprosthetic fractures were repaired with a plate and cable. In group 3, periprosthetic fractures were repaired with a plate and stapler. In group 4, periprosthetic fractures were repaired with a plate and stapler cable. In group 5, periprosthetic fractures were repaired with a plate stapler and screw. Groups 6 and 7 were the control groups. Group 6 was the only artificial bone group, and group 7 was the prosthesis embedded bone group. Group 8 was periprosthetic fractures treated with unicortical screw fixation with cerclage, and group 9 was periprosthetic fractures treated with unicortical screw fixation. Axial loading was applied to the bones. The yield strength of the system was determined by loading the synthetic bone models with a constant compression speed of 5 mm/min through the centre of motion using the Geratech SH 2000 testing system. During the tests, load and displacement values were recorded, and the stiffness of the models was calculated based on those values.

resultsAccording to our results, the greatest durability was found in the revision hip prosthesis group (1511 N), and the weakest performance was found in the plate with the stapler implant group (163N). When comparing the data of groups according to compression, significant differences were found in group 2 with groups 1, 4, 5, and 7; group 3 with group 1; group 8 with groups 1 and 5; and group 9 with 1, 5, 7, and according to breakage, significant differences were found in group2 with groups 1, 3, 5, and 7; group 3 with group 1; group 8 with groups 1 and 5; and group 9 with groups 1, 5, and 7 (p<0.001). DISCUSSION: The revision hip prosthesis treatment for periprosthetic fractures showed the best performance, followed by the plate with stapler screw. In older patients, U nail-augmented implants may be a good alternative for periprosthetic fractures. Unicortical screw and cerclage wire combination fixation results were unsatisfactory results in this study.

conclusionThis is an experimental study, so further studies, especially patient-specific studies, should be made to expand the findings of this study.

Indexed as

Femoral FracturesPeriprosthetic FracturesAgedBiomechanical PhenomenaBone PlatesFracture Fixation, InternalHumansArtificial boneBoneHip prosthesesPeriprosthetic fracturesU nail

Identifiers

PMID33866388
OpenAlexW3155076425

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.