ArticleMusculoskeletal surgery2023
Mechanical evaluation of the effect of the rod to rod distance on the stiffness of uniplanar external fixator frames.
Article in Musculoskeletal surgery, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Finite element analysis and clinical evaluation of cross locking external fixator configuration for distal third tibia fracture.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Finite Element Analysis of Von Mises Stress in External Fixators for Open Tibial Fractures: A Comparative Study of ASTM F1541-02 and Tibia-Based Models in Indonesian Patients.Healthcare technology lettersArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the effect of the rod-to-rod distance on the mechanical stability of single-rod and double-rod external fixator frames.
methodsFour different constructs, one single-rod and three double-rod constructs with different rod-rod distances, were subjected to the axial, bending, and torsional forces. The stiffness of different configurations was calculated.
resultsSingle-rod configuration had statistically the lowest stiffness when subjected to the axial, bending, and torsional forces. Maximum stiffness against the axial and anterior-posterior bending forces was achieved when the rod-rod distance was adjusted to 50 mm (halfway between the first rod and the end of the Schanz pins). There was no statistically significant difference in lateral bending stiffness among different double-rod configurations (p value: 0.435). The maximum stiffness against torsional forces was achieved when the rod-rod distance was adjusted to 100 mm (the second rod at the end of the Schanz pins).
conclusionDouble-rod uniplanar external fixator frames are significantly stiffer than the single-rod constructs, and however, the rod-rod distance can significantly affect the construct stiffness. We found that a frame with 50 mm rod-rod distance was the optimum fixator among tested configurations that allowed a balance between axial, bending, and torsional stiffness of the construct.
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.