ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025
A novel anatomical integrated acetabular plate for acetabular fracture involving posterior wall/column: a biomechanical study.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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.
- Clinical outcomes of internal iliosciatic fixation using a conventional reconstruction plate via an anterior approach for acetabular fractures involving the posterior column.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The optimal treatment for complex acetabular fracture involving the posterior wall and column remains controversial. To address this issue, a novel anatomically integrated acetabular plate (AIP) was developed, designed to integrate the biomechanical advantages of both reconstruction and T-shaped plates. This biomechanical study aimed to evaluate the mechanical performance of the AIP in comparison with conventional fixation methods. Methods: Acetabular fractures involving the posterior wall and column were created in 18 fresh-frozen pelvis specimens and assigned to three fixation groups: (1) an anatomically integrated plate (AIP), (2) two reconstruction plates with a T-plate (RPTP), and (3) two reconstruction plates with two lag screws (RPLS). A standing position was simulated, and a Zwick Z100 testing machine applied an axial load from 0 to 1400 N. A load-displacement sensor and digital dial gauge were used to measure overall displacement, stiffness, and displacement of the posterior wall and column to evaluate the mechanical stability of each fixation construct. Results: Under increasing axial loading, all three groups of model specimens exhibited a linear trend in axial displacement without sudden load drops. Among the groups, the AIP group demonstrated the smallest overall displacement (1.87 ± 1.09 mm), followed by the RPTP (2.29 ± 1.12 mm) and RPLS groups (2.63 ± 1.21 mm). No significant difference in displacement was observed between the AIP and RPTP groups under loads of 0-1000 N ( Conclusion: Overall, the AIP group provided the best biomechanical performance in terms of minimizing displacement and maximizing stiffness, followed by RPTP and RPLS group, indicating its potential superiority for the stabilization of acetabular fractures involving the posterior wall and column.
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.