ArticleInternational orthopaedics2025
Is the innovative both column screw fixation technique a biomechanical game-changer in the fixation of acetabular posterior column fractures?
Article in International orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Safe passage analysis for both column screw fixation technique in posterior column acetabular fractures.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe Both Column Screw (BCS) fixation technique is a recently introduced, innovative method for the treatment of acetabular posterior column fractures. This study aims to biomechanically compare the BCS technique with conventional posterior column lag screw fixation methods using finite element analysis.
methodsFive different internal fixation models were simulated using five distinct screw fixation techniques: antegrade posterior column screw (APCS), retrograde posterior column screw (RPCS), magic screw (MS), anterior BCS (aBCS), and posterior BCS (pBCS). The modeling process included meshing, assignment of material properties, and definition of boundary conditions. Each model was subjected to three different loading conditions: level walking, stairs up, and stairs down. The biomechanical performance of each fixation technique was evaluated based on five parameters: maximum stress in the screw, maximum stress in the bone, total deformation, gap in fracture surfaces, and sliding distance in the fracture surface.
resultsFinite element analysis demonstrated biomechanical differences among the five fixation techniques. The APCS model consistently showed the highest stress values and deformation across all loading conditions, whereas the MS, aBCS, and pBCS models exhibited lower deformation and stress parameters. Among these, pBCS generally displayed the most favorable performance in terms of stress reduction and fracture stability. Overall, the BCS configurations (aBCS and pBCS) showed improved biomechanical behavior compared to conventional fixation methods.
conclusionThe BCS fixation technique, due to its superior biomechanical properties, may serve as a valuable addition to current methods for acetabular posterior column fractures. It broadens surgical options and may support clinical decision-making for orthopaedic surgeons.
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.