Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39361102›Full record

ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2025

Comparative biomechanical analysis of a conventional/novel hip prosthetic socket.

Yu Qian, Yunzhang Cheng, Shiyao Chen, Mingwei Zhang, Yingyu Fang, Tianyi Zhang

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Yu QianSchool of Health Science and Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai, China.
Yunzhang ChengSchool of Health Science and Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai, China.
Shiyao ChenSchool of Health Science and Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai, China.
Mingwei ZhangSchool of Health Science and Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai, China.
Yingyu FangSchool of Health Science and Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai, China.
Tianyi ZhangSchool of Health Science and Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai, China. 18817349848@163.com.

Funding

Innovative Research Group Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China 61473193
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the biomechanical properties of the conventional and novel hip prosthetic socket by using the finite element and gait analysis. According to the CT scan model of the subject's residual limb, the bones, soft tissues, and the socket model were reconstructed in three dimensions by using inverse modeling. The distribution of normal and shear stresses at the residual limb-socket interface under the standing condition was investigated using the finite element method and verified by designing a pressure acquisition module system. The gait experiment compared and analyzed the conventional and novel sockets. The results show that the simulation results are consistent with the experimental data. The novel socket exhibited superior stress performance and gait outcomes compared to the conventional design. Our findings provide a research basis for evaluating the comfort of the hip prosthetic socket, optimizing and designing the structure of the socket of the hip.

Indexed as

Hip ProsthesisProsthesis DesignBiomechanical PhenomenaFinite Element AnalysisGaitHumansMaleStress, MechanicalTomography, X-Ray ComputedFinite element analysisGait analysisHip prosthetic socketInterface pressure

Identifiers

PMID39361102

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.