ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2024
Evaluation of an early-stage prototype polyurethane femoral head implant for hip arthroplasty.
Article 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomechanical Impact of Cementation Technique Variations on Femoral Stem Stability: An In Vitro Polyurethane Model Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Cytotoxicity and antibacterial susceptibility assessment of a newly developed pectin-chitosan polyelectrolyte composite for dental implants.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Controlling the Synthesis of Polyurea Microcapsules and the Encapsulation of Active Diisocyanate Compounds.Polymers · 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Thi study evalautes a new bone-preserving femoral head cover that mimics the articular cartilage of the femoral head. Methods: A specially developed polyurethane (PU) was evaluated in biocompatibility (cytotoxicity test) and mechanical response to tensile loading. In the cytotoxicity test, steam sterilized (SS) and ethylene oxide sterilized (EtO) PU samples were incubated separately in a cell culture medium. The seeded cell line MG-63 was then added to these sample-incubated cell culture mediums. One negative control group and one positive control group were also evaluated. The cells in each group were cultured for seven days before being quantified using the alamarBlue assay. In the mechanical test, the femoral head cover implants were separated into three groups of three samples. Each group represented a different implant insertion idea: direct insertion ( Results: The cytotoxicity test results show no significant difference in fluorescence intensity between the negative control, the three SS groups, and one EtO group (P > 0.05). However, the other two EtO groups exhibit significantly lower fluorescence intensity compared with the negative control (P < 0.05). In the mechanical test, the Conclusion: The cytotoxicity test and the mechanical experiment provide initial assessments of the proposed PU femoral head cover implant. The evaluation outcomes of this study could serve as a foundation for developing more functional design and testing methods, utilizing numerical simulations, and developing animal/clinical trials in the future.
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.