ArticlePloS one2024
Comparison of double chevron-cut and biplanar distal femoral osteotomy techniques: A biomechanical study.
Article in PloS one, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- A single lateral hinge screw increased resistance to varus stress after medial closing wedge distal femoral osteotomy in a Sawbones model: A biomechanical analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the stability and mechanical properties of the double chevron-cut (DCC) and biplanar (BP) distal femoral osteotomy (DFO) techniques, along with analyzing their respective contact surface areas.
methodsBiomechanical testing was performed using sawbone and 3D modeling techniques to assess axial and torsional stability, torsional stiffness, and maximum torque of both osteotomy configurations. Additionally, 3D models of the sawbone femur were created to calculate and compare the contact surface area of the DCC, BP, and conventional single-plane DFO techniques.
resultsAxial stiffness and maximum strength did not significantly differ between the two osteotomy techniques. However, in terms of torsional properties, the DCC technique exhibited superior torsional stiffness compared to the BP group (27 ± 7.7 Nm/° vs. 4.5 ± 1.5 Nm/°, p = 0.008). Although the difference in maximum torque did not reach statistical significance (63 ± 10.6 vs. 56 ± 12.1, p = 0.87), it is noteworthy that the DCC group sawbone model exhibited fracture in the shaft region instead of at the osteotomy site. Therefore, the actual maximum torque of the DCC construct may not be accurately reflected by the numerical values obtained in this study. The contact surface area analysis revealed that the BP configuration had the largest contact surface area, 111% larger than that of the single-plane configuration. but 60% of it relied on the less reliable axial cut. Conversely, the DCC osteotomy offered a 31% larger contact surface area than the single-plane configuration, with both surfaces being weight-bearing.
conclusionThe DCC osteotomy exhibited superior mechanical stability, showing improved rotational stiffness and maximum torque when compared to the BP osteotomy. Although the BP osteotomy resulted in a larger contact surface area than the DCC osteotomy, both were larger than the conventional single-plane configuration. In clinical practice, both the DCC and BP techniques should be evaluated based on patient-specific characteristics and surgical goals.
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.