ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2024
Biomechanical comparison of headless compression screws versus independent locking screw for intra-articular fractures.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect of Variable-Pitch Headless Compression Screws and Cortical Screws on Interfragmentary Compression: An In Vitro Polyurethane Foam Block Model.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Fixation Techniques for Scaphoid Fractures: A Narrative Review.Orthopedic reviews · 2026Article
- Modified 3D-Controlled Inside-Out Compression Screw Fixation Technique in Posterior Malleolar Fractures: A Narrative Review and Case Report.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Engagement and Stress Concentration Evaluation of a Novel Two-Part Compression Screw: A Preliminary Finite Element Analysis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeHeadless compression screws (HCS) have a variable thread pitch and headless design enabling them to embed below the articular surface and generate compression force for fracture healing without restricting movement. Locking screws have greater variety of dimensions and a threaded pitch mirroring the design of the HCS. The objective of this study is to determine whether locking screws can generate compression force and compare the compressive forces generated by HCS versus locking screws.
methodA comparison between 3.5-mm HCS versus 3.5-mm locking screws and 2.8-mm HCS versus 2.7-mm locking screws was performed using a synthetic foam bone model (Synbone) and FlexiForce sensors to record the compression forces (N). The mean peak compression force was calculated from a sample of 3 screws for each screw type. Statistical analysis was performed using the one-way ANOVA test and statistical significance was determined to be p = < 0.05.
resultsThe 3.5-mm Synthes and Smith and Nephew locking screws generated similar peak compression forces to the 3.5-mm Acutrak 2 headless compression screws with no statistically significant difference between them. The smaller 2.7-mm Synthes and Smith and Nephew locking screws initially generated similar compressive forces up to 1.5 and 2 revolutions, respectively, but their peak compression force was less compared to the 2.8-mm Micro Acutrak 2 HCS.
conclusionLocking screws are able to generate compressive forces and may be a viable alternative to headless compressive screws supporting their use for intra-articular fractures.
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.