ArticleMedical engineering & physics2021
Virtual implantation technique to estimate endoprosthetic contact of percutaneous osseointegrated devices in the tibia.
Article in Medical engineering & physics, 2021. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- 3D bio-printed scaffolds and smart implants: evaluating functional performance in animal surgery models.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Clinical Basis for Creating an Osseointegrated Neural Interface.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Finite Element Analysis of Transhumeral and Transtibial Percutaneous Osseointegrated Endoprosthesis Implantation.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Percutaneous osseointegrated (OI) devices have an endoprosthesis attached to the residual bone of an amputated limb, then pass permanently through the skin to be connected to the distal prosthetic componentry outside of the body. Whether the bone-anchoring region of current OI endoprostheses are cylindrical, and/or conical, they require intimate bone-endoprosthesis contact to promote stabilizing bone attachment. However, removing too much cortical bone to achieve more contact leads to thinner and, subsequently, weaker cortical walls. Endoprostheses need to be designed to balance these factors, namely maximizing the contact, while minimizing the volume of bone removed. In this study, 27 human tibias were used to develop and validate a virtual implantation method. Then, 40 additional tibias were virtually implanted with mock cylindrical and conical bone-anchoring regions at seven residual limb lengths to measure resultant bone-endoprosthesis contact and bone removal. The ratio of bone-endoprosthesis contact to bone volume removed showed the conical geometry had more contact area per volume bone removed for all amputation levels (p ≤ 0.001). In both mock devices, cortical penetration of the endoprosthesis at 20% residual length occurred in 74% of cases evaluated, indicating that alternative endoprosthesis geometries may be needed for clinical success in that region of bone.
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.