ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
Biomechanical evaluation of different medial column fixation patterns for valgus pilon fractures.
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 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.
- Effect of different internal fixation devices on intertrochanteric fractures.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to perform a biomechanical analysis to compare different medial column fixation patterns for valgus pilon fractures in a case-based model.
methodsBased on the fracture mapping, 48 valgus pilon fracture models were produced and assigned into four groups with different medial column fixation patterns: no fixation (NF), K-wires (KW), intramedullary screws (IS), and locking compression plate (LCP). Each group contained wedge-in and wedge-out subgroups. After fixing each specimen on the machine, gradually increased axial compressive loads were applied with a load speed of one millimeter per minute. The maximum peak force was set at 1500 N. Load-displacement curves were generated and the axial stiffness was calculated. Five different loads of 200 N, 400 N, 600 N, 800 N, 1000 N were selected for analysis. The specimen failure was defined as resultant loading displacement over 3 mm.
resultsFor the wedge-out models, Group-IS showed less displacement (p < 0.001), higher axial stiffness (p < 0.01), and higher load to failure (p < 0.001) than Group-NF. Group-KW showed comparable displacement under loads of 200 N, 400 N and 600 N with both Group-IS and Group-LCP. For the wedge-in models, no statistical differences in displacement, axial stiffness, or load to failure were observed among the four groups. Overall, wedge-out models exhibited less axial stiffness than wedge-in models (all p < 0.01).
conclusionsFunctional reduction with stable fixation of the medial column is essential for the biomechanical stability of valgus pilon fractures and medial column fixation provides the enough biomechanical stability for this kind of fracture in the combination of anterolateral fixation. In detail, the K-wires can provide a provisional stability at an early stage. Intramedullary screws are strong enough to provide the medial column stability as a definitive fixation. In future, this technique can be recommended for medial column fixation as a complement for holistic stability in high-energy valgus pilon 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.