ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Finite element biomechanics of novel intramedullary nails with varying diameters for intertrochanteric femoral fractures with lateral wall injury.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the fixation performance differences between the traditional proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA), "II" proximal femoral bionic nail (PFBN), and proximal femoral total bionic nail (PFTBN) in the treatment of intertrochanteric femoral fractures complicated by lateral wall injury using finite element analysis. Additionally, it intended to explore the biomechanical effects of reamed versus unreamed techniques on these novel intramedullary nail devices. Methods: Validated FEA models of intertrochanteric fractures (lateral wall injury) were constructed with 9 mm (unreamed) and 11 mm (reamed) medullary canals, followed by implantation of PFNA, "II" PFBN, or PFTBN. Under a vertical load of 2100 N, Von Mises Stress (VMS) and displacement of the femur and implants were quantified. Results: Under a vertical load of 2100 N, in the unreamed condition, the PFTBN exhibited the lowest peak stress and displacement among the three devices, followed by the "II" PFBN, while the traditional PFNA showed the poorest performance. After reaming, all three implants demonstrated increased peak stress and slightly elevated peak displacement; however, PFTBN remained the most stable. Notably, reaming significantly reduced the overall peak stress of the femur. Collectively, PFTBN more effectively reduced the stress and displacement of both the femur and the implant under both reamed and unreamed conditions, with "II" PFBN showing intermediate efficacy. Both novel devices provided superior internal fixation stability compared to PFNA, which may contribute to a reduced risk of postoperative complications. Conclusion: PFTBN outperforms "II" PFBN and PFNA in load/shear resistance for intertrochanteric fractures with lateral wall injury, regardless of reaming. "II" PFBN also shows superior stability to PFNA. Reaming increases nail-bone contact, mitigating femoral stress concentration and refracture risk. Both PFTBN and "II" PFBN are reliable fixation options with promising clinical utility.
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.