ArticlePloS one2022
Biomechanical study of anterior and posterior pelvic rings using pedicle screw fixation for Tile C1 pelvic fractures: Finite element analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomechanical stability evaluation of isolated straddle fracture using finite element analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Exploratory Biomechanical Comparison of Three Posterior Pelvic Ring Fixation Strategies in a Standardized Tile C1.2 Synthetic Model.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Biomechanical Comparison of Three Fixation Constructs for Tile Type C1.2 Pelvic Ring Fractures: A Finite Element Analysis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A novel internal fixation system for sacral fractures: a finite element biomechanical study.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement by using optical navigation.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2026Article
- CT/MRI-based finite element model construction and biomechanical analysis of acetabular quadrilateral fractures.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Biomechanical performance evaluation of SScientific reports · 2025Article
- Modified screw-rod fixation for management of posterior pelvic ring fractures: a retrospective study.BMC surgery · 2024Article
- Semi-automated finite element analyses of surgically treated acetabular fractures to investigate the biomechanical behaviour of patient-specific compared to conventional implants.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- [Finite element analysis of five internal fixation modes in treatment of Day typeZhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to analyse the biomechanical characteristics of pedicle screws with different placement methods and diameters in the treatment of Tile C1 pelvic fractures by finite element simulation technology and to compare them with the plate fixation model to verify the effectiveness of pedicle screw fixation.
methodsA three-dimensional digital model of a normal pelvis was obtained using computed tomography images. A finite element model of a normal pelvis containing major ligaments was built and validated (Model 1). Based on the verified normal pelvis finite element model, a Tile C1 pelvic fracture model was established (Model 2), and then a plate fixation model (Model 3) and a pedicle screw fixation model with different screw placement methods and diameters were established (Models 4-15). For all pelvic fracture fixation models, a vertical load of 500 N was applied on the upper surface of the sacrum to test the displacement and stress distribution of the pelvis in the standing state with both legs.
resultsThe finite element simulation results showed the maximum displacement of Model 1 and Models 3-15 to be less than 1 mm. The overall maximum displacement of Models 4-15 was slightly larger than that of Model 3 (the maximum difference was 177.91×10-3 mm), but the maximum displacement of iliac bone and internal fixation in Models 4-15 was smaller than that of Model 3. The overall maximum stress (maximum stress of the ilium) and maximum stress of internal fixation in Models 4-15 were less than those in Model 3. The maximum displacement difference and maximum stress difference at the fracture of the pubic ramus between each fixed model were less than 0.01 mm and 1 MPa, respectively. The greater the diameter and number of pedicle screws were, the smaller the maximum displacement and stress of the pelvic fracture models were.The maximum displacement and stress of the pelvic fracture models of the screws placed on the injured side of the pubic region were smaller than the screws on the healthy side.
conclusionBoth the anterior and posterior pelvic rings are fixed with a pedicle screw rod system for treatment of Tile C1 pelvic fractures, which can obtain sufficient biomechanical stability and can be used as a suitable alternative to other implants.The greater the diameter and number of pedicle screws were, the greater the pelvic stability was, and the greater was the stability of the screws placed on the injured side of the pubic region than the screws on the healthy side.
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.