ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Finite element analysis of the stability of tibiofibular fractures treated with various combinations of external fixators.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. 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.
- Biomechanical evaluation of X-ray permeable CF/PEEK composite versus conventional titanium alloy for tibial external fixation plates: a finite element analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Finite Element Analysis of Von Mises Stress in External Fixators for Open Tibial Fractures: A Comparative Study of ASTM F1541-02 and Tibia-Based Models in Indonesian Patients.Healthcare technology lettersArticle
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
backgroundExternal fixators have been extensively applied in the treatment of open tibiofibular fractures and have yielded positive outcomes. The stability of an external fixator primarily hinges on its structure. Employing additional external fixation components can undoubtedly enhance stability. However, there is scant research on the topic of achieving superior stability with fewer external fixation components.
methodsUtilizing 3D modeling software, constructed three different external fixation models in middle tibial fractures in Group A, constructed four external fixation models in proximal tibial fractures in Group B, and constructed four external fixation models in distal tibial fractures in Group C.Simulate the load under the assistance of a walker to stand up, obtain the displacement of fractures and the stress of the external fixator for each group. Analyze and compare the results of each model.
resultsIn a mid-tibial fracture, the stability of the crossbar increases by 21% with each 2 cm closer to the tibia. Model B3 achieves superior stability with the use of more fixed clamps and connecting rods in the "H" shaped model. Although the triangular cross-bar structure used in Model B4 is less stable than that of Model B3, it has achieved 83.2% of the stability of Model B3, despite using fewer components. The stability of Model C4 has increased by 73.44% compared to Model C3.
conclusionsThe external fixator should be configured to keep the crossbar as close to the skin as possible. For proximal tibial fractures, to minimize the use of external fixation components, the triangular cross-bar structure of Model B4 can be employed. In the case of distal tibial fractures, while the triangular cross-bar structure of Model C4 offers good stability, the risk of displacement is greater. Therefore, it is advisable to use an H-shaped fixation method with additional external fixation components, such as those found in Model C3.
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.