ArticleScientific reports2026
The necessity of cement augmentation in metastatic femur stabilization explored by finite element analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Intramedullary nailing is widely used for prophylactic stabilization of femoral metastases. Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cement augmentation is often applied, yet its biomechanical necessity across lesion sizes remains uncertain. To address this, we evaluate whether intramedullary nailing (IMN) alone provides sufficient stabilization, whether cement augmentation offers additional displacement reduction, and how it affects stress distribution in the bone and implant across varying lesion sizes. Finite element analysis is performed on femoral models simulating 1 cm, 3 cm, and 5 cm midshaft metastatic defects. Four structural conditions are analyzed: intact bone, metastasis only, IMN, and IMN with cement. Mechanical parameters including displacement, von Mises stress, micromotion, and implant stress are assessed under walking load. IMN alone reduces displacement by 31.1% and 40.1% in the 3 cm and 5 cm lesions, respectively, compared to metastasis-only models. In these larger defects, cement augmentation provides an additional reduction in micromotion of up to 8.1% and slightly lowers implant stress in the 5 cm model. In contrast, cement augmentation in 1 cm lesions increases displacement and implant stress by up to 43.8%. Therefore, the results highlight that cement augmentation provides biomechanical benefit mainly in large or structurally unstable lesions and may be unfavorable in small lesions. Intramedullary nailing alone is sufficient for smaller defects, so augmentation should be selectively applied.
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.