ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2025
Femoral calcar double-supported screw fixation enhances biomechanical stability in Pauwels type III femoral neck fractures: a comparative biomechanical study.
Article in American journal of translational research, 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.
- Article
- Primary total hip arthroplasty for a femoral neck fracture in a homolateral above-knee amputee: a case report.Frontiers in surgery · 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
objectivesThis study proposed a novel fixation method - femoral calcar double-supported screw fixation (FCDSF) - and evaluated its biomechanical performance. The fixation's mechanical properties were assessed and compared with those of inverted triangular parallel cannulated screws (3CS) and biplane double-supported screw fixation (BDSF) for Pauwels type III femoral neck fractures (FNFs).
methodsFifty-four synthetic femur models were allocated into three reduction groups simulating positive buttress, anatomical reduction, and negative buttress conditions. Each group was further divided into three subgroups (n = 6), fixed with FCDSF, 3CS, or BDSF. Torsional tests measured torque at the fracture site under 2° and 4° rotation. Load-to-failure tests were then conducted by applying continuous pressure until failure occurred, and the ultimate loads were recorded.
resultsUnder all reduction conditions, FCDSF demonstrated significantly greater torque at both rotation angles compared with 3CS (P < 0.05), while difference with BDSF was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). FCDSF showed superior load-bearing capacity over both BDSF and 3CS across all conditions (P < 0.05). In both the FCDSF and BDSF groups, positive buttress and anatomical reductions provided significantly better resistance to torsion and shear than negative buttress configurations (both P < 0.05), with no significant difference between the two (P > 0.05). In the 3CS group, only the positive buttress configuration showed a significant improvement over the negative buttress (P < 0.05).
conclusionsFCDSF provides enhanced anti-shear and anti-rotational stability compared with 3CS in managing Pauwels type III FNFs. Negative buttress reduction should be avoided due to its inferior biomechanical performance.
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.