ArticleScientific reports2025
Finite element analysis and clinical evaluation of cross locking external fixator configuration for distal third tibia fracture.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomechanical evaluation of structural integrity after tibial plateau leveling osteotomy in dogs using finite element analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- 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
- Comparative study by FEM of different liners of a transfemoral amputated lower limb.Scientific reports · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
External fixators have been used effectively in damage control orthopaedic and open fractures management of various bones. It is well known that stability of external fixators is greatly influenced by its construct. Various rules have been documented to influence the stiffness and stability of external fixators. In this study, two clinical cases treated with a novel concept of cross self-locking rods external fixation construct were being described, coupled with biomechanical analysis of its stability in comparison with other constructs by using finite element study. These novel self-locking rods configuration proven improve strength by applying the same numbers of rod and pin with the delta frame construct in clinical practice. A validated three-dimensional (3D) model of the bone from a previous study was used and external fixator were designed via computer-aided design (CAD) modelling software, Solidworks. A 1500 N load representing the axial load compression during weight bearing was applied to the tibia with the distal segment of the fracture site secured without any movement. The clinical results showed bone healing process with both cases achieving bone union within the acceptable time. The results of the finite element study shows that the double cross self-locking rods construct had better stability since it showed optimum magnitude in relative micromotion (0.18 mm), lowest stress at the fracture site (189 MPa), displacement of fixator (13.4 mm), and stress at the fixator (687 MPa). In conclusion, double cross self-locking design could provide optimum stability of the external fixator construct by providing better stress distribution at the bone and external fixator, minimize displacement and micromotion at fracture fragments.
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.