Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38844920›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024

A finite element analysis of a low-profile femoral neck system of screws in sleeves in a vertical femoral neck fracture model.

Jun Sun, Le Wu, Nan Fang, Wenze Qiao, Lifeng Liu

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. An MRI-derived head-neck finite element model.Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Biomechanical evaluation of percutaneous compression plate and femoral neck system in Pauwels type III femoral neck fractures.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2024
    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

5 authors.

Jun SunDepartment of Trauma Orthopaedics, Shanghai East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, 150 Jimo Road, Shanghai, 200120, China.
Le WuDepartment of Trauma Orthopaedics, Shanghai East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, 150 Jimo Road, Shanghai, 200120, China.
Nan FangDepartment of Trauma Orthopaedics, Shanghai East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, 150 Jimo Road, Shanghai, 200120, China.
Wenze QiaoDepartment of Trauma Orthopaedics, Shanghai East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, 150 Jimo Road, Shanghai, 200120, China.
Lifeng LiuDepartment of Trauma Orthopaedics, Shanghai East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, 150 Jimo Road, Shanghai, 200120, China. liulifengxy@163.com.

Funding

Health and Family Planning Committee of Pudong New Area PWRd2019-09Shanghai East Hospital, China 2019yhrcjh01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFemoral neck system (FNS) has exhibited some drawbacks, such as non-fit of the plate with the lateral femoral cortex, postoperative pain, and the potential risk of subtrochanteric fractures. We have developed a low-profile FNS system that addresses some compatibility issues in FNS. In this study, we conducted finite element analysis on the 1-hole FNS (1 H-FNS), 2-holes FNS (2 H-FNS), and low-profile FNS (LP-FNS) and compared their biomechanical performance.

methodsAfter the mesh convergence analysis, we established three groups of 1 H-FNS, 2 H-FNS, and LP-FNS. The interfragmentary gap, sliding distance, shear stress, and compressive stress and the bone-implant interface compression stress, stiffness, and displacement were determined under the neutral, flexion, or extension conditions of the hip joint, respectively. The stress and displacement of the femur after the implant removal were also investigated.

results(1) There were no obvious differences among the three FNS groups in terms of the IFM distance. However, the LP-FNS group showed less rotational angle compared with conventional FNS (neutral: 1 H-FNS, -61.64%; 2 H-FNS, -45.40%). Also, the maximum bone-implant interface compression stress was obviously decreased under the neutral, flexion, or extension conditions of the hip joint (1 H-FNS: -6.47%, -20.59%, or -4.49%; 2 H-FNS: -3.11%, 16.70%, or -7.03%; respectively). (2) After the implant removal, there was no notable difference in the maximum displacement between the three groups, but the maximum von Mises stress displayed a notable difference between LP-FNS and 1 H-FNS groups (-15.27%) except for the difference between LP-FNS and 2 H-FNS groups (-4.57%).

conclusionsThe LP-FNS may not only provide the same biomechanical stabilities as the 1 H-FNS and 2 H-FNS, but also have more advantages in rotational resistance especially under the neutral condition of the hip joint, in the bone-implant interface compression stress, and after the implant removal. In addition, the 1 H-FNS and 2 H-FNS have similar biomechanical stabilities except for the maximum von Mises stress after the implant removal. The femur after the LP-FNS removal not only is subjected to relatively little stress but also minimizes stress concentration areas.

Indexed as

Bone ScrewsFemoral Neck FracturesFinite Element AnalysisBiomechanical PhenomenaFemur NeckFracture Fixation, InternalHumansStress, MechanicalFemoral neck fracturesFemoral neck systemFinite element analysis

Identifiers

PMID38844920
PMCPMC11155040

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.