ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Biomechanical study on the treatment of tibial defects in total knee arthroplasty using the cement-screw and metal block with extension stem techniques: a finite element analysis.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the biomechanical properties of the cement-screw technique with the metal block extension stem technique in reconstructing Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) type 2 tibial defects in total knee arthroplasty using the finite element method, in order to provide a basis for clinical selection. Methods: Non-inclusive 5-mm and 10-mm depth AORI type 2 tibial defects were modeled using the finite element method. The cement-screw technique and the metal block extension stem technique were applied for reconstruction, resulting in a total of four sets of finite element models. Each group of models was tested under two loads: horizontal walking and descending stairs. The von Mises stress distributions in the tibia, prosthesis, and bone defect regions, as well as the peaks of micromotion at the prosthesis-tibia interface, were measured. Results: In the AORI type 2 tibial defect model, the cement-screw group, when reconstructing 5 mm and 10 mm defects under horizontal walking and descending stairs loads, exhibited higher maximum tibial stress (5 mm: 78.0-140 MPa; 10 mm: 80.9-151 MPa), proximal tibial defect area stress (5 mm: 11.3-25.3 MPa; 10 mm: 10.8-24.1 MPa), and peak micromotion values (5 mm: 9.90-26.99 μm; 10 mm: 11.94-31.98 μm) compared to the metal block extension stem group (tibial stress 5 mm: 73.2-130 MPa, 10 mm: 66.6-118 MPa; defect area stress 5 mm: 7.83-16.3 MPa, 10 mm: 8.54-18.8 MPa; peak micromotion 5 mm: 6.56-14.72 μm, 10 mm: 8.92-24.09 μm). However, prosthesis stresses were lower in the cement-screw group (5 mm: 87.1-183 MPa; 10 mm: 60.2-158 MPa) than in the metal block extension stem group (5 mm: 101-194 MPa, 10 mm: 92.7-167 MPa). Under horizontal walking loading, the two techniques showed no superiority of one over the other in terms of the von Mises stresses and the peaks of micromotion; however, under descending stairs loads, the maximum stress in the tibia of the cement-screw group with a 10-mm defect exceeded 150 MPa (151 MPa), indicating a potential fracture risk, and the peaks of micromotion was smaller in all models. Conclusion: The findings of this study indicate that the cement-screw technique is more cost-effective and convenient for repairing 5-mm defects and is appropriate for reconstruction of this size. However, when the bone defect reaches 10 mm, the cement-screw technique may elevate the risk of fracture, and thus, safety concerns must be taken into account. In contrast, the metal block extension stem technique offers a better balance between effectiveness and safety, making it the preferred option for defects of this size.
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.