SynthesisEFORT open reviews2026
Here today, gone tomorrow: the transformative role of biodegradable materials in modern trauma care.
Synthesis in EFORT open 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This systematic review examines the role of biodegradable implants in orthopaedic traumatology, focusing on their advantages, limitations, and clinical applications compared to traditional non-biodegradable implants. Key factors such as biocompatibility, mechanical performance, and degradation were evaluated to understand their impact on fracture healing and patient outcomes. Methods: A systematic search of the current literature and clinical studies between 2010 and 2024 was conducted. Comparative data between biodegradable (polymeric and metallic) and non-biodegradable metallic implants were assessed, particularly concerning clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. The review process was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Results: Forty studies were selected for analysis out of 1,366 studies. Biodegradable implants demonstrated effective mechanical support during bone healing, with gradual load transfer to the regenerating bone. They reduced the need for secondary surgeries, particularly in paediatric cases, where they mitigated growth disturbances associated with metallic implants. However, challenges such as implant-related inflammation and premature degradation were noted. Comparative studies revealed similar or superior clinical outcomes with biodegradable implants, although mechanical strength remained a concern in specific applications. Conclusion: Biodegradable implants can represent a transformative shift in orthopaedic traumatology, not only offering advantages over metallic implants but also supporting a broader conceptual evolution in fracture fixation. Future research and development of advanced materials are essential to address current limitations. Emerging technologies, such as complex alloys, the addition of reinforcements, new manufacturing techniques, and a focus on biocompatibility, bone regeneration, and functionalisation of the implant, may offer controlled biodegradation, superior biocompatibility, antimicrobial properties, and tailored mechanical performance.
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.