Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38576443›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2024

Reliable

Giulia Galteri, Marco Palanca, Domenico Alesi, Stefano Zaffagnini, Kavin Morellato, Emanuele Gruppioni, Luca Cristofolini

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Giulia GalteriDepartment of Industrial Engineering, School of Engineering and Architecture, Alma Mater Studiorum-University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Marco PalancaDepartment of Industrial Engineering, School of Engineering and Architecture, Alma Mater Studiorum-University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Domenico AlesiIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
Stefano ZaffagniniIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
Kavin MorellatoCentro Protesi INAIL, Bologna, Italy.
Emanuele GruppioniCentro Protesi INAIL, Bologna, Italy.
Luca CristofoliniDepartment of Industrial Engineering, School of Engineering and Architecture, Alma Mater Studiorum-University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
University of Bologna · ITIstituto Nazionale per l'Assicurazione Contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro · ITIstituto Ortopedico Rizzoli · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Osseointegrated transfemoral prostheses experience aseptic complications with an incidence between 3% and 30%. The main aseptic risks are implant loosening, adverse bone remodeling, and post-operative periprosthetic fractures. Implant loosening can either be due to a lack of initial (primary) stability of the implant, which hinders bone ingrowth and therefore prevents secondary stability, or, in the long-term, to the progressive resorption of the periprosthetic bone. Post-operative periprosthetic fractures are most often caused by stress concentrations. A method to simultaneously evaluate the primary stability and the load transfer is currently missing. Furthermore, the measurement errors are seldom reported in the literature. In this study a method to reliably quantify the bone implant interaction of osseointegrated transfemoral prostheses in terms of primary stability and load transfer was developed, and its precision was quantified. Micromotions between the prosthesis and the host bone and the strains on the cortical bone were measured on five human cadaveric femurs with a typical commercial osseointegrated implant. To detect the primary stability of the implant and the load transfer, cyclic loads were applied, simulating the peak load during gait. Digital Image Correlation was used to measure displacements and bone strains simultaneously throughout the test. Permanent migrations and inducible micromotions were measured (three translations and three rotations), while, on the same specimen, the full-field strain distribution on the bone surface was measured. The repeatability tests showed that the devised method had an intra-specimen variability smaller than 6 μm for the translation, 0.02 degrees for the rotations, and smaller than 60 microstrain for the strain distribution. The inter-specimen variability was larger than the intra-specimen variability due to the natural differences between femurs. Altogether, the measurement uncertainties (intrinsic measurement errors, intra-specimen repeatability and inter-specimen variability) were smaller than critical levels of biomarkers for adverse remodelling and aseptic loosening, thus allowing to discriminate between stable and unstable implants, and to detect critical strain magnitudes in the host bone. In conclusion, this work showed that it is possible to measure the primary stability and the load transfer of an osseointegrated transfemoral prosthesis in a reliable way using a combination of mechanical testing and DIC.

Indexed as

above-the-knee amputationin vitro mechanical testload transferlower-limb amputationmicromotionprimary stabilitytransfemoral osseointegrated prosthesis

Identifiers

PMID38576443
PMCPMC10991734
OpenAlexW4393054001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.