ArticleBone & joint research2026
Biomechanical study of screw-supported prosthesis in acetabular revision.
Article in Bone & joint research, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Acetabular bone defects pose a common challenge in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Our team has applied screw-supported prostheses to the revision of severe acetabular defects and achieved good early clinical results. However, in one of our cases, loosening of the screw-cup connection occurred five months after surgery. Therefore, we investigated the mechanical characteristics and weak points of this prosthesis system through finite element analysis (FEA) and mechanical testing, and proposed improvement strategies. Methods: A screw-supported prosthesis used in clinical practice was modelled, and FEA was performed to obtain its displacement and von Mises stress distribution under gait loading. Emphasis was placed on the stresses at the screw-cup connection to analyze the failure mechanism. Mechanical compression tests were subsequently performed on the prosthesis, and the failure mode of the prosthesis verified the results of the FEA. Results: FEA identified the posterior iliac and pubic locking connections as weak points prone to fatigue failure. Mechanical tests confirmed that the locking connection failed under 2,500 to 3,000 N loads. The improved sleeve connection enhanced connection strength and reduced failure risk. Conclusion: The screw-supported prosthesis shows potential for severe acetabular defects, but the screw-cup connection remains a vulnerable site. Enhanced connection designs (e.g. sleeve connection) and bone grafting effectively mitigate failure risk.
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.