ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Biomechanical Comparison of Different Fixation Methods for Treating Jones Fracture of the Fifth Metatarsal.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Jones fractures are Zone 2 fractures of the fifth metatarsal. Biomechanical comparisons of fixation strategies for Jones fractures remain limited by the lack of standardized, head-to-head evaluations across major fixation methods. The purpose of this study was to perform a standardized biomechanical comparison of six fixation configurations representing the three primary surgical techniques for Jones fractures and to examine the mechanical factors underlying differences in early construct stability. A synthetic fifth metatarsal model with a simulated Zone 2 fracture was stabilized using lateral plate fixation with different screw configurations, Kirschner wire fixation with or without tension-band wiring, or intramedullary headless screw fixation. All constructs were tested under displacement-controlled cantilever bending, and the force required to reach 1 mm of fracture site displacement was obtained and construct stiffness was calculated. Plate-based fixation demonstrated the highest resistance to bending deformation, followed by intramedullary screw fixation, whereas Kirschner wire-based constructs exhibited the lowest stability. These differences were explained by variations in load-sharing pathways and effective working length among fixation constructs. The addition of tension-band wiring did not result in a measurable improvement in stability compared with Kirschner wire fixation alone, consistent with the dependence of tension-band mechanisms on active muscle loading not represented in the experimental model. These findings provide a unified biomechanical comparison of commonly used fixation constructs for Jones fractures and clarify the mechanical basis for differences in early construct stability.
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.