Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40615788›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025

Biomechanical evaluation of novel construct for stabilizing subcapital femoral neck fractures: a synthetic bone model.

Anjan R Shah, Miguel A Diaz, Douglas L Cerynik, Blake Schultz

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Anjan R ShahOrthopaedic Trauma Service, Florida Orthopaedic Institute, 13020 N. Telecom Parkway, Tampa, FL, USA. ashah@floridaortho.com.
Miguel A DiazFoundation for Orthopaedic Research & Education, 4115 W Spruce St. Suite 201, Tampa, FL, USA.
Douglas L CerynikStabiliz Orthopaedics, 600 Eagleview Blvd, Exton, PA, USA.
Blake SchultzTexas Orthopedics Sports & Rehabilitation Associates, 911 W 38th St. Suite 300, Austin, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh complication rates continue to be reported for femoral neck fractures, where moderate to severe shortening has been associated with pain and inferior functional outcomes. The objective was to evaluate the biomechanical performance of a novel femoral neck fracture fixation device by comparing to a clinically relevant construct using commercially available cannulated screws.

methodsTwelve Sawbones femurs were equally divided into two groups where Group I was instrumented with a new fixation system consisting of two partially threaded cannulated screws and a cross-screw and Group II was instrumented with three partially threaded cannulated screws. The fracture pattern resembled a Garden Type II fracture with superior fracture comminution with a 3° wedge. Mechanical testing was set to simulate heel strike. All constructs were preconditioned under a series of non-destructive tests (torsional, bending and compression). Thereafter, a step-wise increasing cyclic loading protocol to a maximum of 30,000 cycles or until failure. Fracture gap area collapse, rotation of the femoral head, screw displacement, failure modes and number of cycles to failure were compared between groups.

resultsAt 10,000 cycles, Group I had significantly larger fracture gap area when compared to Group II (p = 0.020). The fracture gap was also assessed after the additional fatigue protocol, and Group I continued to demonstrate enhanced ability to resist femoral neck shortening compared to Group II (p = 0.001). For femoral head rotation, Group I constructs demonstrated an average of 0.19° less rotation of the femoral head about the neck after 10,000 loading cycles (p = 0.88). From the zero position (0 N) to pre-load (50 N), Group I screws demonstrated less backout when compared to Group II. While this initial decrease in backout was not statistically significant (p = 0.47), with each subsequent loading step, Group I screws demonstrated significantly less displacement than Group II (p < 0.05). During the fatigue testing up to 30,000 cycles, samples in Group I failed at 20,286 cycles and Group II failed at 14,001 on average, however, this was not statistically significant (p = 0.19).

conclusionConstructs in Group I outperformed Group II by demonstrating the ability to retain an increased fracture gap area during cyclical testing and withstand screw displacement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Basic Science.

Indexed as

Bone ScrewsFemoral Neck FracturesFracture Fixation, InternalBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansMaterials TestingProximal Femoral FracturesStress, MechanicalFemoral headFemoral neck fractureFracture fixationInternal fixationNeck shortening

Identifiers

PMID40615788
PMCPMC12228216

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.