ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2025
Non-screw glenoid augmentation constructs for shoulder instability with bone loss: A biomechanical assessment of static and elastic cerclage constructs.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to compare the biomechanical performance of elastic and static suture-based cerclage systems to traditional screw constructs in the setting of modeled glenoid bony augmentation. Methods: Biomechanical testing was conducted on polyurethane cellular foam blocks modeling a 20 % glenoid defect repaired with a coracoid graft. Constructs consisted of an elastic suture-based cerclage, static suture-based cerclage, and a two-screw construct. Biomechanical testing was performed on material testing system, using a 7-phase, 100 cycle per phase, 1Hz, sinusoidal cyclic loading protocol, following a stair-step pattern in load control. Failure for cyclic loading was assessed at 0.8 mm linear displacement. The absolute end level for load-to-failure was 7.0 mm. Results: Static suture-based cerclage failed at 5-50 N (Cycles 2 through 4), 2-screw constructs failed at 25-50 N (Cycle 4), and elastic suture-based cerclage failed at 100-200N (Cycles 6 and 7). Elastic cerclage exhibited superior performance compared to static cerclage beginning in Cycle 2 (p = 0.0440) and compared to SOC 2-screw construct beginning in Cycle 4 (p = 0.0118). 2-screw construct exhibited superior stability performance compared to static cerclage beginning in Cycle 3 (p = 0.0001). Elastic cerclage reached failure at 558.141 ± 4.508 N, while 2-screw construct and static cerclage reached failure at 422.009 ± 24.998 N and 366.770 ± 66.653 N, respectively. Elastic cerclage demonstrated superior biomechanical stability in load-at-failure performance to static cerclage (p < 0.0001) and the screw construct (p < 0.0001), while static cerclage demonstrated inferior biomechanical stability to the screw construct (p = 0.0343). Conclusion: This biomechanical study comparing the performance of elastic cable and static suture tape cerclage fixation methods identified that the elastic cable cerclage exhibits a higher load-at-failure and less displacement under repetitive stress. In addition, elastic cable cerclage fixation exhibits greater strength and construct rigidity than traditional metal screw 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.