ReviewJournal of orthopaedics2024
Investigation of mechanical behavior on the cement hip spacer geometry under finite element method and compression load test.
Review in Journal of orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Elution, Porosity, and Mechanical Performance of Vancomycin-Loaded Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) Bone Cement.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Exploiting Adiabatic Softening for Defect-Free Hot Forging of Ti-6Al-4V Femoral Stems.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Radiographic parameters and mechanical complications of articulating vs. non-articulating hip spacers.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Finite Element Analysis of a 3D-Printed Acetabular Prosthesis for an Acetabular Defect According to the Paprosky Classification.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Use of a Novel On-bone Femoral Spacer Molding Device for Reducing Femoral Spacer Complications in Periprosthetic Total Knee Infection: Preliminary Results.Arthroplasty today · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective: Antibiotic cement spacers (CS) are standard treatment for periprosthetic hip infection. However, complications such as cement spacer fracture and spacer dislocation remain common after surgery. The aim of this study is to investigate the influence of CS geometry design on mechanical strength through finite element analysis and compression load testing. Methods: The CS model was generated using the three-dimensional engineering program, and an aluminum molding block was created. The mechanical behavior was analyzed using finite element method (static structural version 2022R1). A compression load test was employed to evaluate both fatigue failure and the ultimate failure load. Results: The femoral neck area experiences the highest Von Mises stress (36.32 MPa) with lowest safety factor (1.37). The femoral head shows the most significant deformation. The designed CS is capable of withstanding repetitive loads of 35-50 kg for a total 600,000 cycles. The ultimate load to failure was 4354 N. The fracture analysis reveals a vertical sharing type at the femora neck and transverse-short oblique type at the proximal stem. Conclusion: The designed CS can withstand the majority of daily activities with 50 % partial weight bearing for patients weighing 70-100 kg. The femoral neck area experiences the highest stress and shear strain. To optimize the geometric design of the CS, the increase in femoral neck-shaft angle and maximizing the femoral neck diameter should be consider.
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.