ArticleJoint diseases and related surgery2022
The evaluation of a de novo biplanar distal humerus plate: A biomechanical study.
Article in Joint diseases and related surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomechanical Design Optimization of Distal Humerus Fracture Plates: A Review.BioMed research international · 2024Review
- Which parameters are more reliable in proximal humerus surgery in terms of the axillary nerve?Joint diseases and related 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the stability of a novel biplanar distal humerus plate with the single- and double-columns J-plating techniques. MATERIALS AND
methodsEighteen sawbones humera were divided into three groups. In Groups 1, 2 and 3, biplanar plate, single lateral J-plate and double J-plate, were used, respectively. Transverse osteotomies at the upper portion of the olecranon fossa were made. Blocks of 10-mm was removed from each sample. Axial, torsional, and extensional stiffness of each group were measured.
resultsThe mean axial stiffness values in Groups 1, 2, and 3 were 64.80±6.75, 33.70±5.71, and 171.48±9.53 N/mm, respectively. Group 1 demonstrated a statistically significant difference compared to Group 2 (p=0.032), whereas Group 3 showed a statistically significant difference compared to Groups 1 and 2 (p=0.025 and p=0.014, respectively). The mean torsional stiffness values of Groups 1, 2, and 3 were 0.23±0.01, 0.14±0.008, and 0.30±0.007 N/ degree, respectively. Groups 1 and 3 demonstrated a statistically significant difference compared to Group 2 (p=0.042 and p=0.028, respectively). No statistically significant difference was detected between Groups 1 and 3 (p=0.27). The mean extensional bending stiffness values of Groups 1, 2 and 3 were 2.64±0.31, 1.17±0.13, and 3.2±0.1 N/mm, respectively. Group 1 demonstrated a statistically significant difference compared to Group 2 (p=0.041). There was no statistically significant difference between Groups 1 and 3 (p=0.083).
conclusionBiplanar plate allows applying enough numbers of long sagittal screws and offers more biomechanical stability than lateral column J-plate and in some aspects strong as dual J-plating in torsional and bending tests.
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.