Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35016716›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2022

Comparison between external locking plate fixation and conventional external fixation for extraarticular proximal tibial fractures: a finite element analysis.

Dejan Blažević, Janoš Kodvanj, Petra Adamović, Dinko Vidović, Zlatko Trobonjača, Srećko Sabalić

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. [Treatment options and research progress of proximal tibial extra-articular fractures].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2025
    Review
  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
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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Dejan BlaževićDepartment of Traumatology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Center, Draškovićeva 19, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia. dejan.blazevic@live.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2908-2508
Janoš KodvanjFaculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Zagreb, Ivana Lučića 5, 10002, Zagreb, Croatia.
Petra AdamovićFaculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Zagreb, Ivana Lučića 5, 10002, Zagreb, Croatia.
Dinko VidovićDepartment of Traumatology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Center, Draškovićeva 19, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia.
Zlatko TrobonjačaSchool of Medicine, University of Rijeka, Braće Branchetta 20/1, 51000, Rijeka, Croatia.
Srećko SabalićDepartment of Traumatology, Sestre milosrdnice University Hospital Center, Draškovićeva 19, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia.
University of Zagreb · HRUniversity of Applied Health Sciences · HRUniversity of Rijeka · HRUniversity of Split · HR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGood clinical outcomes for locking plates as an external fixator to treat tibial fractures have been reported. However, external locking plate fixation is still generally rarely performed. This study aimed to compare the stability of an external locking plate fixator with that of a conventional external fixator for extraarticular proximal tibial fractures using finite element analysis.

methodsThree models were constructed: (1) external locking plate fixation of proximal tibial fracture with lateral proximal tibial locking plate and 5-mm screws (ELP), (2) conventional external fixation of proximal tibial fracture with an 11-mm rod and 5-mm Schanz screws (EF-11), and (3) conventional external fixation of a proximal tibial fracture with a 7-mm rod and 5-mm Schanz screws (EF-7). The stress distribution, displacement at the fracture gap, and stiffness of the three finite element models at 30-, 40-, 50-, and 60-mm plate-rod offsets from the lateral surface of the lateral condyle of the tibia were determined.

resultsThe conventional external fixator showed higher stiffness than the external locking plate fixator. In all models, the stiffness decreased as the distance of the plate-rod from the bone surface increased. The maximum stiffness was 121.06 N/mm in the EF-11 model with 30-mm tibia-rod offset. In the EF-7 model group, the maximum stiffness was 40.00 N/mm in the model with 30-mm tibia-rod offset. In the ELP model group, the maximum stiffness was 35.79 N/mm in the model with 30-mm tibia-plate offset.

conclusionsFinite element analysis indicated that external locking plate fixation is more flexible than conventional external fixation and can influence secondary bone healing. External locking plate fixation requires the placement of the plate as close as possible to the skin, which allows for a low-profile design because the increased distance from the plate to the bone can be too flexible for bone healing. Further experimental mechanical model tests are necessary to validate these finite element models, and further biological analysis is necessary to evaluate the effect of external locking plate fixation on fracture healing.

Indexed as

Bone PlatesExternal FixatorsFracture FixationBiomechanical PhenomenaFinite Element AnalysisHumansTibiaTibial FracturesTomography, X-Ray ComputedExternal fixatorFinite element analysisFractureLocking plateTibia

Identifiers

PMID35016716
PMCPMC8753923
OpenAlexW4220936312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.