ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
Different polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) reinforcement strategies for long bone osteoplasty procedures: a controlled laboratory comparison using the 4-point bending test.
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 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.
- An analysis of different reconstruction techniques for the radius: a finite element analysis.Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology · 2026Article
- Biomechanically optimized 3D-Printed titanium prostheses with stiffener arrangement for critical femoral diaphyseal defects: early weight-bearing capacity and combat readiness validated through integrated biomechanical-FEA approach.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCementoplasty has been successfully used for treating fractures in various parts of the human body, although the use in weight-bearing long bones is a subject of controversial debate. Strategies to improve the mechanical properties of polymethylmethacrylate-based bone cement (BC) comprise changing the chemical composition or the application of metal reinforcement strategies. In clinical practice reinforced bone cement is used despite biomechanical basic research regarding this topic being scare.
objectiveThe aim of the present study was to evaluate the biomechanical properties of two different reinforcement strategies against non-reinforced polymethylmethacrylate-based BC subjected to bending stress.
methodsIn this controlled comparative laboratory analysis, we evaluated two types of reinforcement strategies in comparison to a control group (C). BC was reinforced with a Kirschner wire (group CW) or with a prestressed twinned steel cable (group CC); control group C was native polymethylmethacrylate-based BC. All the samples were prepared using a custom-made mould and underwent 4-point bending stress until fracture using a testing machine. Flexural strength, maximum strain, and Young's modulus were assessed for the three groups and compared using the Kruskal‒Wallis test.
resultsThe mean flexural strength in MPa was 48 ± 12 in C, 64 ± 6 in CW, and 63 ± 14 in CC. A significantly greater flexural strength of + 33% was found in both reinforced groups than in the C group (C vs. CW p = 0.011, C vs. CC p = 0.023). Regarding the flexural strength, no statistically significant difference could be found between the two reinforcement strategies CW and CC (p = 0.957). The maximum strain was 3.0% in C and CW and 3.8% in CC and no difference between the three groups was observed (p = 0.087). The Young's modulus in GPa was 2.7 for C, 2.8 for CW, and 2.4 for CC. The comparison of Young's module using the Kruskal-Wallis test showed no statistically significant difference between CC, CW and C (p = 0.051).
conclusionsWe detected an improvement in flexural strength in the reinforced groups. Both reinforcement through K-wire and prestressed cables promoted increased flexural strength. Furthermore, less material failure was observed with possible realignment and subsequent residual stability despite bone cement fracture. From a biomechanical view, the concept of macro metal reinforcement of osteoplasty is viable.
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.