ReviewClinics in orthopedic surgery2026
Mechanical Performance of Monoaxial Versus Polyaxial Locked Plates for Bone Fracture Repair: A Review.
Review in Clinics in orthopedic surgery, 2026. 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 assessment of polyaxial combination-hole locking plates for screw push-out strength and three-point bending.Frontiers in veterinary science · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Widely used "locking" bone fracture plates include standard monoaxial locking plates (MLPs) that allow a single screw insertion angle relative to the plate, as well as newer polyaxial locking plates (PLPs) that permit various screw insertion angles relative to the plate. This is the first review of all studies that compared the mechanical performance of MLPs vs. PLPs. PubMed and Web of Science were searched using the phrases "locked plate polyaxial" and "locked plate variable." Eligibility criteria were applied: mechanical studies, rather than clinical studies, that directly compared MLPs vs. PLPs; bone fracture studies, rather than spine fusion or joint arthroplasty studies; studies published in English; and studies from any date. The 32 studies used experimental testing or computational modeling to compare MLPs vs. different types of PLPs either as implant-bone constructs or isolated implants. The studies employed different bone sites (humerus, radius, femur, tibia, calcaneus, "generic" long bone, implant only), bone qualities (normal, osteoporotic, unknown), fracture sites (proximal, midshaft, distal), and loading modes (axial, bending, torsional). The studies reported mechanical outcome metrics like stiffness, strength, fragment or fracture motion, bone or plate peak stress, and cyclic fatigue life; but no studies reported screw peak stress or bone "stress shielding" risk. The highest mechanical stability was obtained by different implants for the humerus (PLP with "cap" locking), radius (MLP or PLP with "bushing" or "flange" locking), femur (PLP with "cap" locking), tibia (PLP with "bushing" locking), calcaneus (PLP with "flange" or "score" locking), "generic" long bone (PLP with "cap" locking), and isolated implant without bone (PLP with "cap" locking). General trends in results, tabulated numerical data, practical "key concepts," clinical aspects, and recommendations for future work were also given in this review. PLPs almost always provided greater mechanical stability than MLPs for various bone fracture applications, but the specific type of PLP depended on the bone site.
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.