ReviewOTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma2023
Great debates in trauma biomechanics.
Review in OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of the Biomechanical Stability of Two Fix-and-Replace Techniques in an Acetabular Fracture Model with Pelvic Discontinuity.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Technical considerations and early results of magnetic compressive intramedullary nailing for tibial and femoral shaft non-unions: a case series.Annals of joint · 2026Article
- Mechanical evaluation of mandibular fractures stabilized with absorbable implants or intraoral splints in cats.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- Erratum: Great debates in trauma biomechanics-Erratum.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
At the 2021 annual meeting of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association, the Basic Science Focus Forum hosted its first ever debate-style symposium focused on biomechanics and fracture repair. The 3 subjects of debate were "Mechanics versus Biology-Which is 'More Important' to Consider?" "Locked Plate versus Forward Dynamization versus Reverse Dynamization-Which Way Should I Go?" and "Sawbones versus Cadaver Models-What Should I Believe Most?" These debates were held because fracture healing is a highly organized synergistic response between biological factors and the local mechanical environment. Multiple studies have demonstrated that both factors play roles in governing bone healing responses, and the causal relationships between the 2 remain unclear. The lack of clarity in this space has led to a spectrum of research with the common goal of helping surgeons make good decisions. Before reading further, the reader should understand that the questions posed in the debate titles are unanswerable and might represent a false choice. Instead, the reader should appreciate that the debates were held to gain a more thorough understanding of these topics based on the current state of the art of experimental and clinical studies, by using an engaging and thought-provoking format.
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.