ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024
Biomechanical comparison of femoral neck anti-rotation and support system versus femoral neck system for unstable pauwels III femoral neck fractures.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- An Adams' Arch -based anatomical classification system guiding internal fixation strategies for non-displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients: a finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Femoral Neck System in Pauwell III Femoral Neck Fractures: A Bibliometric Analysis and Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Reverse obliquity femoral neck fractures: two case reports with a literature review.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal treatment method for managing unstable Pauwels III femoral neck fractures remains undetermined. The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of two types of Femoral Neck Anti-rotation and Support System (FNAS) and a Femoral Neck System (FNS) in unstable Pauwels III femoral neck fractures.
methodsEighteen synthetic femoral models were implanted with one of three fixation devices: FNS, FNAS I, or FNAS II. An unstable Pauwels III (OTA/AO 31-B2.3) femoral neck fracture was simulated using a custom-made needle and osteotomy guide. Torsion and axial compression loading tests were conducted, and the torque, torsion angle, load to failure, displacement, and stiffness values were recorded.
resultsFNAS II exhibited significantly higher torsional stiffness (0.67 ± 0.10 Nm/°) compared to FNAS I (0.52 ± 0.07 Nm/°, P = 0.01) and FNS (0.54 ± 0.07 Nm/°, P = 0.005). FNS demonstrated significantly greater mean axial stiffness (239.24 ± 11.38 N/mm) than both FNAS I (179.33 ± 31.11 N/mm, P = 0.005) and FNAS II (190.07 ± 34.11 N/mm, P = 0.022). FNAS I (302.37 ± 33.88 N/mm, P = 0.001) and FNAS II (319.59 ± 50.10 N/mm, P < 0.001) showed significantly higher initial axial stiffness compared to FNS (197.08 ± 33.68 N/mm). Both FNAS I and II improved resistance to deforming forces at a load level before approximately 1000 N, which is sufficient to withstand the load from most daily life activities. No significant differences were observed in compression failure load among the groups. The failure patterns at the point of failure included the pull-out of the distal locking screw and reverse oblique intertrochanteric femur fracture for FNS, while for FNAS I and II, the failures were characterized by a cleft on the calcar femorale and a decrease in the load-displacement curve.
conclusionsIn unstable Pauwels III femoral neck fractures, the FNAS II enhances stability and is easier to manage for reoperation. The results of the current study support the potential of FNAS II as an alternative option for treating unstable Pauwels III femoral neck fractures in young individuals.
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.