ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025
Finite element analysis of the treatment of supracondylar humerus fractures in children with kirschner's pin and a new method of treatment.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeSupracondylar humerus fractures in children are common elbow injuries. This finite element analysis (FEA) study investigates the biomechanical properties of five Kirschner pin fixation techniques for pediatric extension-type fractures, with a focus on proposing a novel posterolateral double-pin caudal fixation method (Group E).
methodA three-dimensional finite element model was developed based on CT scans of a 5-year-old child’s humerus to simulate extension-type fractures. Five fixation configurations were compared: Group A: Mediolateral cross-pinning (3 pins); Group B: Cross-pinning (2 pins); Group C: Lateral fan-pinning (3 pins); Group D: Lateral fan-pinning (2 pins); Group E: Novel technique with two lateral pins connected extracorporeally (2 pins) Biomechanical testing includes tensile (30 N·mm), torsion (135 N·mm), and inversion (100 N·mm) load testing for all groups.
resultsOptimal stability: Group A (tensile: 167.15 MPa, torsion: 153.96 MPa, inversion: 146.98 MPa).Novel Group E performance: Tensile: 174.02 MPa (vs. 176.98 MPa in Group D), Torsion: 162.99 MPa (vs. 236.8 MPa in Group D), Inversion: 169.19 MPa (vs. 151.11 MPa in Group D), Group E significantly outperformed Group D and approached the stability of Groups B/C.
conclusionThe novel extracorporeal-connected double-pin fixation (Group E) provides comparable biomechanical stability to conventional three-pin techniques while eliminating medial pinning-related ulnar nerve injury risks. It represents a viable optimized option for clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV (Computational biomechanical study).
Indexed as
Identifiers
41042356What 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.