ArticleBone & joint research2025
Comparison of the mechanical performance of intramedullary nail and locking plate in tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis : a finite element analysis.
Article in Bone & joint 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.
- Finite element analysis in foot and ankle arthrodesis.Bone & joint research · 2026Article
- Patient-Specific Finite Element Analysis of Tibialis Anterior Tendon Insertion Variability and Its Impact on First Ray Biomechanics.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
Aims: This study uses finite element analysis (FEA) to compare intramedullary nail (IMN) and locking compression plate (LCP) in tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis (TTCA), examining biomechanical changes in the joints and assessing which construct better supports arthrodesis under axial loading. Methods: A 3D finite element model of the foot-ankle complex was constructed from CT images of a 29-year-old male's lower limb. The model included homogeneous cortical and trabecular bones, cartilage, and 29 ligaments. Titanium alloy (Ti6Al4V) implants simulated IMN and LCP fixations. The inferior surfaces of the metatarsals and calcaneus were fixed, and axial loads of 1×, 2×, and 3× body weight (BW) were applied. Von Mises stress and joint displacement evaluated construct stability. Results: At 1× BW, the IMN model exhibited the highest joint surface stress (32.44 MPa, superior talus) and higher implant stresses than those of the LCP model. Under increased loading, stress rose substantially in both models, peaking at +364.38% in LCP (superior talus) and +130.98% in IMN screws. Stress in the LCP model was more widely distributed across the tibia and calcaneus, while in the IMN model it was concentrated in the talus. At 3× BW, the LCP calcaneus exhibited the largest proportion of elements within the elevated stress range (5.3%). Peak displacement was higher in LCP (376 μm at 1× BW). Although IMN showed larger relative displacement increases, absolute joint displacements remained consistently lower than LCP. Conclusion: Both IMN and LCP provide sufficient mechanical support for TTCA. IMN offers greater initial stability, reflected by lower joint displacement, but generates higher implant stress, particularly under increased loading. In contrast, LCP exhibits more uniform stress distribution and smaller screw stress increases as load rises, and may offer improved mitigation of implant stress concentrations under elevated loads.
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.