ArticleScientific reports2024
Patient-specific finite element analysis of four different fixation methods for transversely unstable radial head fractures.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Biomechanical evaluation of biodegradable zinc and polylactide pins for radial head fracture fixation: a human cadaver study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Functional Outcome of Radial Head Fracture Treated with Open Reduction Internal Fixation using Plating Versus Herbert Screw Fixation: A Case Series.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2025Article
- Dual mini-plate vs. T-plate fixation for Edinburgh type IB proximal clavicle fractures: a comparative clinical study.American journal of translational research · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Plate fixation is a common treatment option for radial head fractures (RHFs). Due to the benefits of less invasiveness and fewer complications of internal fixation, the application of small-diameter headless compression screws (HCSs) to treat RHFs has become a new trend. This study aimed to compare the mechanical stability of four distinct internal fixation protocols for transversely unstable RHFs via finite element analysis. Using computed tomography data from 10 patients, we developed 40 patient-specific FE models of transversely unstable RHFs fixed by parallel, crossed, and tripod HCSs and mini-T plate (MTP). Under simulated physiological loading of the elbow joint, the construct stiffness, displacement, and von Mises stresses were evaluated and verified by a biomechanical experiment. Under shear loading, the MTP group exhibited lower construct stiffness, larger displacement, and higher Von Mises stress than the HCSs group. The stiffness of tripod HCSs was greater than parallel and crossed screw fixation techniques. There was a strong relationship between apparent bone density and construct stiffness (R = 0.98 to 0.99). In the treatment of transversely unstable RHFs, HCSs have superior biomechanical stability than MTP. The tripod technique was also more stable than parallel and crossed fixation.
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.