ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
The significance of reduction of valgus-intercalated femoral neck fracture with valgus angle > 15°and the selection of internal fixation by finite element analysis.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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.
- Clinical efficacy of manual reverse closed reduction and robot-assisted cannulated screw fixation for valgus-impacted osteoporotic femoral neck fractures in the elderly: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Biomechanical effects of FNS on femoral neck fractures based on different reduction quality: finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Biomechanical difference analysis of new and classic intramedullary nail devices in the treatment of basal femoral neck fractures: finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrently, consensus is lacking on the necessity of internal fixation after reducing valgus-intercalated femoral neck fractures with abduction > 15°. This study employs finite element analysis to compare the biomechanical differences between the femoral neck dynamic cross nail system (FNS) and inverted cannulated screw (ICS), aiming to provide a foundation for clinical procedures.
methodsHuman femur CT scan data were processed using MimICS21.0 and Geomagic 2021 software, imported into Solidworks2021 to create fracture models, based on Garden I abduction and Valgus-intercalated femoral neck fractures. The internal fixation model was divided into two groups: A-Anatomic reduction group; B-Valgus-intercalated femoral neck fracture group. ANSYS software facilitated meshing, material assignment, and data calculation for stress and displacement comparisons when ICS and FNS were applied in reduction or non-reduction scenarios.
resultsWithout internal fixation, peak femur stress in both groups was 142.93 MPa and 183.62 MPa. Post FNS fixation, peak stress was 254.11 MPa and 424.81 MPa; peak stresses for the two FNS models were 141.26 MPa and 248.33 MPa. Maximum displacements for the two FNS groups were 1.91 mm and 1.26 mm, with peak fracture-end stress at 50.751 MPa and 124.47 MPa. After ICS fixation, femur peak stress was 204.76 MPa and 274.08 MPa; maximum displacements were 1.53 mm and 1.15 mm. ICS peak stress was 123.88 MPa and 174.61 MPa; maximum displacements were 1.17 mm and 1.09 mm, with peak fracture-end stress at 61.732 MPa and 104.02 MPa, respectively.
conclusionsOur finite element study indicates superior mechanical stability with internal fixation after reducing valgus-intercalated femoral neck fractures (> 15°) compared to in situ fixation. Additionally, ICS biomechanical properties are more suitable for this fracture type than FNS.
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.