ArticlePloS one2025
Computational modeling of bone allograft reconstruction following femoral shaft tumor resection: Investigating the impact of supplementary plate fixation.
Article in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveThe use of bone allograft reconstructions after tumor resection can introduce significant complications. Stable fixation is required to decrease the incidence of mechanical complications of segmental bone allografts. The purpose of the present study is to compare plating fixation methods of diaphyseal allografts after intercalary resection of the femur.
methodsWe created four defined fixation models using plates and/or intramedullary polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) to simulate typical bone tumor resection with intercalary allograft reconstruction. One angularly stable plate (DFP) with 13 locking screws and fresh frozen allografts (labeled "I") were used for bone reconstruction. Three modified reconstructions were created: "II" included a supplementary plate (SP) with four locking screws, "III" was augmented with intramedullary PMMA in the allograft, and "IV" combined intramedullary PMMA and both plates. We applied a load model that simulates partial weight bearing on the lower limb to simulate the load during postoperative rehabilitation.
resultsThe highest stress in the DFP occurred at the allograft-bone transition, with variant IV reaching 297 MPa. PMMA augmentation reduced median interfragmentary motion (IFM) and sliding distances, with variant III achieving the lowest distal sliding distance (0.9 μm) in the distal area. Supplementary plate fixation reduced maximal and median proximal IFM distances (86.9 μm in variant II vs. 116.0 μm in variant I) but increased sliding distances (23.7 μm in variant II vs. 0.6 μm in variant I).
conclusionsPMMA augmentation reduces IFM and sliding distances, enhancing rigidity, particularly in the distal area. Supplementary plate fixation decreases IFM distances in the proximal area but increases sliding distances in the same region. Variants III and IV demonstrate lower IFM and sliding distances in the distal area overall. Variant III shows very low sliding distances in both distal and proximal areas. Variant IV combines improved firmness with slightly higher stress levels.
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.