ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2021
Biomechanical analysis of three different types of fixators for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction via finite element method: a patient-specific study.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Technology Update in Management of Multi-Ligament Knee Injuries.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2024Review
- Article
- The application of human medical image-based finite element analysis in the construction of mouse osteoarthritis models.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Finite element analysis of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques: A comparison of the mechanical properties of all-inside fixation and traditional fixation.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Article
- The Development and Biomechanical Analysis of an Allograft Interference Screw for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Biomechanical comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction fixation methods and implications on clinical outcomes.Annals of joint · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Complication rates of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R) were reported to be around 15% although it is a common arthroscopic procedure with good outcomes. Breakage and migration of fixators are still possible even months after surgery. A fixator with optimum stability can minimise those two complications. Factors that affect the stability of a fixator are its configuration, material, and design. Thus, this paper aims to analyse the biomechanical effects of different types of fixators (cross-pin, interference screw, and cortical button) towards the stability of the knee joint after ACL-R. In this study, finite element modelling and analyses of a knee joint attached with double semitendinosus graft and fixators were carried out. Mimics and 3-Matic softwares were used in the development of the knee joint models. Meanwhile, the graft and fixators were designed by using SolidWorks software. Once the meshes of all models were finished in 3-Matic, simulation of the configurations was done using MSC Marc Mentat software. A 100-N anterior tibial load was applied onto the tibia to simulate the anterior drawer test. Based on the findings, cross-pin was found to have optimum stability in terms of stress and strain at the femoral fixation site for better treatment of ACL-R.
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.