ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2023
Optimal additional support screw position for prevention of hinge fracture in biplanar closed wedge distal femoral osteotomy.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Percutaneous compression screw fixation for hinge fractures in distal femoral osteotomy does not compromise radiographic or clinical outcomes: A retrospective case-control study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to examine the biomechanical significance of supplemental fixation using a positional screw in prevention of the hinge fracture in lateral closed-wedge distal femoral osteotomy (LCW-DFO) by means of a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Methods: The three-dimensional numerical knee models with LCW-DFO were developed. To assess the mechanical efficacy of the positional screw and determine its optimal position and orientation, in total, 13 screwing methods were analyzed. In the first four methods, the screw was supported by the cortical bone only on the medial surface (mono-cortical). In the other 9 models, the screw was supported by both medial and lateral cortical bones (bi-cortical). Under 1000 N of vertical force and 5 Nm of rotational torques, the highest shear stress value around the medial hinge area was adopted as an analytical parameter. Results: In mono-cortical methods, with the cancellous bone support, all methods were able to reduce the highest stress value compared to the value without the screw, while the efficacy was rather inferior when the screw was in horizontal direction. Without the cancellous bone support, however, all methods were not able to reduce the stress value. In bi-cortical methods, with the cancellous bone support, almost all screw augmentation methods were able to reduce the stress value. When screwing from the medial to the lateral, it only gets worse when going extremely posterior. Without the cancellous bone support, all methods were able to reduce the stress value. Conclusion: The mechanical efficacy of the bi-cortical method was proven regardless of the quality of the local cancellous bone.
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.