ReviewJournal of hand and microsurgery2025
Stabilization of the scapholunate interval with interference fit screws: How to do it safely.
Review in Journal of hand and microsurgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scapholunate instability is a common wrist injury that significantly affects wrist function and biomechanics. This study compares three internal brace fixation methods for stabilizing the scapholunate interval in cadaveric models with a control group with intact ligaments (Group C): (1) internal brace without interference screw (Group N), (2) internal brace outside the interference screw (Group O), and (3) internal brace within the interference screw (Group I). The study aims to evaluate biomechanical stability, bone integrity, and osteolysis risk. Thirty-two cadaveric wrists were divided into four groups and subjected to biomechanical testing, including static, dynamic, and failure tests. Results showed that Group C exhibited a maximum failure load at 347.6 ± 21.4N; Group I exhibited the highest maximum failure load (319.4 N ± 28.7 N) and no recurrence of Dorsal Intercalated Segment Instability (DISI) during dynamic testing. Group N demonstrated the lowest biomechanical strength (118.5 N ± 15.3 N) and a 75 % DISI recurrence rate. Group O showed intermediate performance, with a maximum failure load of 221.7 N (±24.6 N) and a 37.5 % DISI recurrence rate. Imaging evaluation revealed that Group I had the least bone damage (2.1 % ± 0.9 %), while Group N had the most (24.8 % ± 2.3 %). The study concludes that placing the internal brace within the interference screw (Group I) offers superior biomechanical stability and bone protection, making it a promising technique for scapholunate stabilization. However, further clinical studies are needed to confirm these findings.
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.