ArticleOrthopedic research and reviews2026
Titanium versus Biodegradable Implants for Fracture Fixation: A Retrospective Comparative Study.
Article in Orthopedic research and reviews, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Titanium alloy implants are widely used in fracture fixation due to their excellent mechanical stability, but they often require secondary surgeries for removal. In contrast, biodegradable implants eliminate the need for removal, yet concerns regarding their mechanical strength in load-bearing bones remain. This study evaluates the clinical trade-off between mechanical rigidity and the burden of secondary surgery by comparing titanium versus biodegradable implants in limb and pelvic fractures. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 73 patients treated between November 2021 and August 2024. Patients were divided into the titanium group (n = 40, primarily diaphyseal fractures) and the biodegradable group (n = 33, primarily metaphyseal/peri-articular fractures). Outcomes including implant palpability and reoperation rates were assessed. A stratified analysis compared outcomes in weight-bearing versus non-weight-bearing fractures. Results: The mean age of patients was 42.6 ± 16.03 years. Titanium implants were associated with significantly higher rates of plate palpability (18/40, 45.0% vs 3/33, 9.1%; OR 8.18, 95% CI 2.14-31.3; Conclusion: In this cohort, biodegradable implants were associated with a reduction in implant palpability and elective removal surgery for metaphyseal and peri-articular fractures. However, due to lower mechanical strength, titanium remains the preferred choice for diaphyseal fractures requiring high mechanical stability. These findings are limited by the retrospective design and heterogeneity of fracture sites.
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.