ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Biomechanical comparison of five fixation methods in minimally invasive hallux valgus osteotomy: a three-dimensional finite element analysis.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
- Biomechanical comparison of Mitchell versus Chevron osteotomy with the third generation minimally invasive screw fixation technique.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Although minimally invasive osteotomy for hallux valgus employs a variety of internal fixation methods, systematic biomechanical evidence evaluating the stability and strength of different fixation configurations is lacking. This study aimed to quantitatively compare the biomechanical properties of five internal fixation techniques using three-dimensional finite element analysis. Methods: Based on CT data of the foot of an adult female patient with moderate hallux valgus (HVA 27.6°, IMA 12.4°), a finite element model of the post-osteotomy state was constructed. The following fixation schemes were simulated: Group A: two 3.5 mm beveled metal screws; Group B: one 3.5 mm beveled metal screw; Group C: two 2.0 mm Kirschner wires; Group D: one 3.5 mm beveled metal screw and one 2.0 mm Kirschner wire; Group E: three 2.0 mm Kirschner wires. Comparison parameters included the maximum equivalent (Von-Mises) stress between the osteotomy fragment and the internal fixation, the maximum displacement of the osteotomy fragments in the X, Y, and Z axes, and the overall displacement of the internal fixation. Results: Under the same load: 1. Maximum stress of the osteotomy fragment: Group A (5.6824 MPa) < Group B < Group D < Group C < Group E (33.33 MPa); 2. Maximum stress of internal fixation: Group A (16.159 MPa) < Group D < Group B < Group C < Group E (238.68 MPa, with significant stress concentration); 3. Maximum displacement of the osteotomy fragment (X/Y/Z): Group E (4.2035/2.8512/7.1309 mm) < Group D < Group A < Group C < Group B (4.3251/3.2353/7.4102 mm); 4. Overall displacement of internal fixation: Group B (7.5284 mm) < Group D < Group C < Group A < Group E (7.9256 mm). Conclusion: 1. Two 3.5 mm beveled screws (Group A) are the optimal configuration, combining low stress distribution (lowest stress on the osteotomy fragment and internal fixation) with high stability (moderate displacement); 2. Combined fixation (Group D) is a secondary option, but bone quality assessment is required (Kirschner wire fixation carries the risk of loosening); 3. Three Kirschner wires (Group E) are only suitable for low-load cases due to the risk of high stress concentration (238.68 MPa).
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.