ArticleJSES international2026
Biomechanical evaluation of different screw fixation methods for Ogawa type I coracoid process base fracture.
Article in JSES international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: The internal fixation of Ogawa type I coracoid fractures is relatively difficult, and there is no consensus on the fixation method, which is also prone to screw cutout. This study aims to evaluate the biomechanical properties of 5 different screw internal fixation methods for Ogawa type I coracoid process base fracture through biomechanical experiments. Hypothesis: The biomechanical effects of the 5 fixation methods are different. Methods: Fifteen fresh adult scapula specimens were randomly selected to create models of Ogawa type I coracoid process base fracture. Five fixation methods were used: single hollow screw fixation entirely within the bone (M1), single hollow screw fixation partially exiting below the vertical part of the coracoid process (M2), single hollow screw fixation partially exiting above the vertical part of the coracoid process and extending to the scapular spine (M3), dual hollow screw fixation entirely within the bone (M4), and dual hollow screw fixation combining M1+M3 (M5). All specimens were randomly divided into 5 groups of 3, each corresponding to a fixation method. Biomechanical experiments of compression, tension, and rotation were conducted to assess the stability of each fixation method. Results: There was no significant difference in bone mineral density among the groups ( Conclusion: The dual-screw fixation methods (M4 and M5) demonstrated the best stability in treating Ogawa type I coracoid process base fracture, with no significant difference between M5 and M4. For single-screw fixation, the entirely intraosseous method (M1) was more stable than the "in-out-in" methods, and the mode with partial downward exit (M2) should be avoided.
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.