ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
Determination of the ideal plate for medial femoral condyle fracture fixation: an anatomical fit and biomechanical study.
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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimizing fixation in medial distal femur fractures: A biomechanical study.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2026Article
- Treatment of displaced sagittal plane femoral condyle fractures (OTA 33 B1-2) with novel J-plate: technical trick and case series.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Article
- Biomechanical effects of six internal fixation methods for distal femoral AO/OTA 33C1 fractures: finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study is to determine the best plate to use as a substitute to fix a medial femoral condyle fracture. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe first part is to measure the best fit between several anatomical plates including the Proximal Tibia Anterolateral Plate (PT AL LCP), the Proximal Tibia Medial Plate (PT M LCP), the Distal Tibia Medial Locking Plate (DT M LCP) and the Proximal Humerus (PHILOS) plate against 28 freshly embalmed cadaveric distal femurs. Measurements such as plate offset and number of screws in the condyle and shaft shall be obtained. The subsequent part is to determine the compressive force at which the plate fails. After creating an iatrogenic medial condyle fracture, the cadavers will be fixed with the two plates with the best anatomical fit and subjected to a compression force using a hydraulic press.
resultsThe PT AL LCP offered the best anatomical fit whereas the PHILOS plate offered the maximal number of screws inserted. The force required to create 2 mm of fracture displacement between the two is not statistically significant (LCP 889 N, PHILOS 947 N, p = 0.39). The PT AL LCP can withstand a larger fracture displacement than the PHILOS (LCP 24.4 mm, PHILOS 17.4 mm, p = 0.004). DISCUSSION AND
conclusionBoth the PT AL LCP and the PHILOS remain good options in fixing a medial femoral condyle fracture. Between the two, we would recommend the PT AL LCP as the slightly superior option.
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.