ArticleHeliyon2024
Effect of structural support size and position on depressed tibial plateau fractures: A finite element analysis.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Poster Fusion Cage combined with xenogeneic bone graft augmentation for bone defect management in distal radius fractures].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Structural support for depressed tibial plateau fractures is receiving increasing attention. Currently, there has been little biomechanical evaluation of structural support. This work aimed to investigate the effect of structural support size and position on fracture fixation stability. Methods: A split-depressed tibial plateau fracture model was created according to the fracture map. Cortical screws combined with structural filler were used for fracture fixation. The filler diameter was set to small, medium and large, and the filler position was set to the center and offset by 1, 2 and 3 mm to study the effect of position and size on stability. Results: The maximum stress on the implant in all scenarios occurs at the lower contact surface between the anterior screw and the filler. Increased support size resulted in increased mean maximum screw stress, depressed fragment axial displacement and separated fragment transverse displacement (screw stress: 266.6 ± 37.7 MPa vs. 266.7 ± 51.0 MPa vs. 273.8 ± 41.5 MPa; depressed displacement: 0.123 ± 0.036 mm vs. 0.133 ± 0.049 mm vs. 0.158 ± 0.050 mm; separated displacement: 0.402 ± 0.031 mm VS 0.412 ± 0.047 mm VS 0.437 ± 0.049 mm). The larger the offset of the support position was, the larger the peak screw stress and the larger the reduction loss of depressed and separated fragment reduction, regardless of the support size. The medium support combined with the central position presented the minimum of peak stress and reduction loss. Cortical bone was below 2 % and trabecular strain was below 10 % for all scenarios. Conclusion: Central placement of structural support provides superior stability for the treatment of depressed tibial plateau fractures compared to the eccentric placement. When a support is placed centrally, optimal stability is achieved when the diameter matches the diameter of the depressed region. Thus, the utilization of equal-diameter fillers to provide central support appears to be an ideal selection for depressed tibial plateau 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.