ArticleArthroplasty (London, England)2025
Prophylactic wiring vs. non-wiring in hip arthroplasty: finite element and cadaveric analysis of proximal femur biomechanics.
Article in Arthroplasty (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntraoperative periprosthetic femur fracture is a serious complication in hip arthroplasty, affecting patient outcomes. This study explored the biomechanical properties of the proximal femur, specifically comparing prophylactic cerclage wiring to non-wiring techniques using finite element analysis (FEA) and cadaveric biomechanical testing.
methodA finite element model of the proximal femur was constructed using Ansys software, allowing systematic assessment of both wiring area and technique to identify biomechanically optimal locations and configurations for cerclage placement. Twenty fresh cadaveric femurs were prepared according to standard protocols; the left femurs received cerclage wiring, while the right served as controls. Each femur was fitted with a femoral stem and tested under axial loading until catastrophic failure. Outcomes measured included ultimate load, seating load, subsidence distance, and energy absorption. Statistical analysis included the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality and independent t-tests for group comparisons.
resultsThe wiring group demonstrated comparable biomechanical performance to the non-wiring group across all measured parameters. Energy absorption was similar between groups (41.9 ± 18.1 Nm vs. 41.0 ± 19.1 Nm, P = 0.918). No significant differences were observed in ultimate load (7.6 ± 2.1 kN vs. 7.7 ± 2.0 kN, P = 0.901) or seating load (3.1 ± 0.7 kN vs. 3.4 ± 1.4 kN, P = 0.589). Similarly, subsidence distance showed no intergroup difference (7.7 ± 2.6 mm vs. 7.7 ± 3.8 mm, P = 0.978).
conclusionCerclage femoral wiring for prophylactic purposes during hip arthroplasty does not confer a significant biomechanical advantage over non-wiring techniques.
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.