ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2022
Spatial Bridge Locking Fixator versus Traditional Locking Plates in Treating AO/OTA 32-A3.2 Fracture: Finite Element Analysis and Biomechanical Evaluation.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of continuous axial stress on tibial fracture healing in canine models using custom external fixator.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Finite element andFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Delayed Union and Nonunion: Current Concepts, Prevention, and Correction: A Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Effect of Plate Configuration in the Primary Stability of Osteotomies and Biological Reconstructions of Femoral Defects: Finite-Element Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- In vitro analysis and in vivo assessment of fracture complications associated with use of locking plate constructs for stabilization of caprine tibial segmental defects.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2023Article
- The Impact of Coronal Configuration of the Proximal Femur on its Mechanical Properties and the Validation of a New Theoretical Model: Finite Element Analysis and Biomechanical Examination.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the biomechanical behaviors of the spatial bridge locking fixator (SBLF), single locking plate (SP), and double locking plate (DP) for AO/OTA 32-A3.2 fractures using finite element analysis and biomechanical tests.
methodsAxial loading of 700 N was conducted on the AO/OTA 32-A3.2 model via finite element analysis. The von Mises stress and the interfragmentary movement (IFM) were comparatively analyzed in the three configurations above. On the mechanical tester, axial and torsional loading of 30 synthetic femurs (five specimens of each configuration for each test at random) was performed, and the interfragmentary movement, torsion angle, stiffness, and ultimate load were recorded and analyzed.
resultsThe finite element analysis (FEA) results showed that the von Mises stress of the spatial bridge locking fixator (SBLF) was lower than that of the single locking plate (SP) and higher than that of the double locking plate (DP). At 700 N, the axial IFMs were 0.15-0.38 mm (SBLF), 0.03-0.84 mm (SP), and 0.02-0.07 mm (DP). The biomechanical experiment indicated that the axial interfragmentary movements (IFMs) were 0.44 ± 0.23 mm (SBLF), 1.02 ± 0.40 mm (SP), and 0.07 ± 0.07 mm (DP) (p < 0.001). The axial IFM of the SBLF group had the highest probability (79.26%) of falling within the ideal range (0.2-0.8 mm), and the SP and DP groups had probabilities of 27.10% and 3.14%, respectively. The axial stiffness in the SBLF group (1586 ± 130 N/mm) was significantly lower than that in the DP group (10,264 ± 2671 N/mm) (p < 0.001) but greater than that in the SP group (725 ± 178 N/mm) (p = 0.396). The range of axial loads to ultimate failure was 3385-4527 N (SBLF), 3377-4664 N (SP), and 3780-4804 N (DP). The shear motion of the fracture end was 0.35 ± 0.14 mm (SBLF), 0.16 ± 0.10 mm (SP), and 0.08 ± 0.04 mm (DP) (p < 0.001). The torsional stiffness was 1.68 ± 0.14 Nm/degree (SBLF), 2.32 ± 0.29 Nm/degree (SP) (SBLF&SP, p < 0.001), and 3.53 ± 0.73 Nm/degree (DP) (SBLF&DP, p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe SBLF structure may exhibit a better biomechanical performance compared with the SP and DP in providing the best quantity and more symmetrical interfragmentary movement for AO/OTA 32-A3.2 fractures.
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.