ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2024
Femoral neck osteosynthesis using interfragmentary compression or position screw in synthetic bones. What are the mechanical differences?
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aim to compare interfragmentary compression with the position osteosynthesis in the fixation of different femoral neck fractures (FN) in synthetic bones subjected to vertical load.
methodsForty-two synthetic femurs were subjected to neck fractures and separated into 3 groups according to the Pauwels classification: Pauwels I had 6 units (PI); Pauwels II, 24 units, with and without comminution (PII); and Pauwels III, 12 units, with and without comminution (PIII). After, they were fixed with 2 different ways: three 7, 0 mm cannulated lag screws (CSs) versus three 6, 5 mm solid fully threaded screws (SSs). Screws positioning was oriented by the Pauwels classification: inverted triangle or crossed screws. All specimens were submitted to vertical loading until failure.
resultsThe average force was 79.4 ± 22.6 Kgf. The greatest one was recorded in model 1 (135.6 Kgf), and the lowest in model 41 (39.6 Kgf). CSs and SSs had similar resistance until failure (p = 0.2). PI showed heightened resistance and PIII showed a worse response (p < 0,01). CSs had better performance in PIII (p = 0.048). Comminution and screws orientation caused no difference on peak force (p = 0.918 and p = 0.340, respectively).
conclusionsIn synthetic bones, the resistance of a femoral neck fracture osteosynthesis using a 7, 0 mm cannulated lag screw or 6, 5 mm solid fully threaded screw are similar. There was no loss of efficiency with comminution in the femoral neck. Osteosynthesis resistance decreased with the verticalization of the fracture line and, in the more vertical ones, interfragmentary compression with CSs was more resistant than positional osteosynthesis with SSs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38780791What 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.