ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024
Semi-automated finite element analyses of surgically treated acetabular fractures to investigate the biomechanical behaviour of patient-specific compared to conventional implants.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acetabular superior wall fractures: a distinct acetabular fracture entity.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- CT/MRI-based finite element model construction and biomechanical analysis of acetabular quadrilateral fractures.Scientific reports · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn acetabular fracture surgery, understanding the biomechanical behaviour of fractures and implants is beneficial for clinical decision-making about implant selection and postoperative (early) weightbearing protocols. This study outlines a novel approach for creating finite element models (FEA) from actual clinical cases. Our objectives were to (1) create a detailed semi-automatic three-dimensional FEA of a patient with a transverse posterior wall acetabular fracture and (2) biomechanically compare patient-specific implants with manually bent off-the-shelf implants.
methodsA computational study was performed in which we developed three finite element models. The models were derived from clinical imaging data of a 20-year-old male with a transverse posterior wall acetabular fracture treated with a patient-specific implant. This implant was designed to fit the patient's anatomy and fracture configuration, allowing for optimal placement and predetermined screw trajectories. The three FEA models included an intact hemipelvis for baseline comparison, one with a fracture fixated with a patient-specific implant, and another with a conventional implant. Two loading conditions were investigated: standing up and peak walking forces. Von Mises stress and displacement patterns in bone, implants and screws were analysed to assess the biomechanical behaviour of fracture fixation with either a patient-specific versus a conventional implant.
resultsThe finite element models demonstrated that for a transverse posterior wall type fracture, a patient-specific implant resulted in lower peak stresses in the bone (30 MPa and 56 MPa) in standing-up and peak walking scenario, respectively, compared to the conventional implant model (46 MPa and 90 MPa). The results suggested that patient-specific implant could safely withstand standing-up and walking after surgery, with maximum von Mises stresses in the implant of 156 MPa and 371 MPa, respectively. The results from the conventional implant indicate a likelihood of implant failure, with von Mises stresses in the implant (499 MPa and 1000 MPa) exceeding the yield stress of stainless steel.
conclusionThis study presents a workflow for conducting finite element analysis of real clinical cases in acetabular fracture surgery. This concept of personalized biomechanical fracture and implant assessment can eventually be applied in clinical settings to guide implant selection, compare conventional implants with innovative patient-specific ones, optimizing implant designs (including shape, size, materials, screw positions), and determine whether immediate full weight-bearing can be safely permitted.
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.