ArticleScientific reports2025
Biomechanical implications of femoral neck system removal following femoral neck fracture treatment in low bone mineral density conditions.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- [Artificial intelligence-assisted diagnostics in the pathology of internal and oncological diseases].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Design and mechanical damage behavior of radially gradient-controllable Ti6Al4V bionic porous bone scaffolds.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the biomechanical implications of Femoral Neck System (FNS) retention and removal in femoral neck fractures under varying bone mineral density (BMD) conditions, with a focus on structural stability and bone resorption risk. A finite element (FE) analysis was conducted using 3D models including intact femurs, FNS-retained (Group I), and FNS-removed (Group R) cases across three BMD levels of 0%, 20%, 40%, and 60%. Structural stability was assessed based on peak von Mises stress (PVMS) in proximal femur, while bone resorption risk was evaluated by analyzing maximum principal stress patterns and measuring strains below the critical bone-damage strain threshold (≤ 200 µstrain). Group I models exhibited localized stress concentrations around the FNS components, with cortical PVMS values of 30.9–34.0 MPa and cancellous PVMS 2.4–3.4 MPa, leading to a stress-shielding effect. The proportion of cancellous bone strains below the 200 µstrain threshold increased to 20.1–18.5% for Models I-0 to I-60, indicating a bone resorption risk. After FNS removal, cortical PVMS increased to 47.0–50.0 MPa, with cancellous bone PVMS returning to near-native levels (0.5–0.8 MPa). Strain analysis revealed a progressive decrease in sub-threshold strains from 3.7% to 0.1%, suggesting restored loading and reduced bone resorption risk. FNS removal can restore physiological stress distribution and reduce bone resorption risk, particularly in patients with low BMD. However, this benefit must be weighed against the potential for increased cortical bone stress, which could compromise structural stability in osteoporotic bone. Therefore, preoperative BMD assessment and postoperative monitoring should be considered to guide clinical decisions regarding FNS removal. the trade-off between restoring physiological load transfer and risking cortical overload must be carefully considered to achieve patient-specific benefit.
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.