ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Finite element analysis of four different fixation methods for the treatment of ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIpsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures are severe injuries caused by high-energy trauma. In recent years, the incidence and discussion of such fractures have increased significantly. Research and literature on these fractures primarily consist of clinical retrospective analyses, meta-analyses, or case reports. Domestic and international studies have examined surgical timing, blood loss, complications, and healing duration across different treatment approaches for these fractures. Currently, no universally agreed-upon standard exists for managing such fractures in the literature.
objectiveFinite element analysis was performed to compare the biomechanical characteristics of four different types of fixations for the treatment of ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures (IFNSF), with the objective of determining the optimal choice of internal fixation.
methodFemoral neck and shaft fracture models were simulated in conjunction with four fixation methods, including a femoral locking plate with a cannulated compression screw (plate + CCS), a retrograde nail with a cannulated compression screw (retrograde nail + CCS), a dual construct (InterTan), and a reconstruction nail. These models were assembled, and finite element analysis was conducted utilizing Ansys workbench.
resultsThe peak von Mises stress for the femoral neck and internal fixation device was the lowest (219.91 MPa and 223.81 MPa, respectively) for the CCS and the highest (392.47 MPa and 388.32 MPa, respectively) for the reconstruction nail. For the A1-A3 type femoral shaft fractures, the peak von Mises stress was highest (102.54 MPa) for the reconstruction nail and lowest (88.554 MPa) for the retrograde nail. For the B2- and C2-type femoral shaft fractures, the peak von Mises stress was the highest (709.32 MPa) for the locking plate, whereas the lowest peak von Mises stress occurred for the retrograde nail (309.32 MPa). The elastic deformation of internal fixation was smallest (7.3365 mm) for the retrograde nail + CCS and largest (17.692 mm) for the plate + CCS.
conclusionIn the treatment of ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures, if the femoral shaft fracture is A1–A3, a retrograde nail with CCS or a femoral locking plate with CCS can achieve optimal mechanical stability. In complex femoral fractures (B2, C2), a retrograde nail with CCS results in superior mechanical 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.