ArticleSkeletal radiology2026
Magic screw fixation for acetabular posterior column fractures: a CT-based digital anatomical study and biomechanical comparison with conventional fixation.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 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
Abstract
objectiveTo explore and quantify the key parameters for placement of the magic screw (MS) in the acetabulum posterior column and compare the biomechanical stability of MS, retrograde lag screw (RLS), single reconstruction plate screw system (SRPS), and double reconstruction plate screw system (DRPS) in the fixation of acetabular posterior column fractures (APCF).
methodsA total of 120 pelvic CT datasets from healthy adults (60 males, 60 females) were retrospectively analyzed for three-dimensional reconstruction and virtual MS placement, with gender differences in key placement parameters measured and verified by senior orthopedic surgeons. A finite element model of APCF was established to compare the biomechanical properties of MS, RLS, SRPS, and DRPS under three physiological loading modes, with von Mises stress and maximum displacement as key evaluation indices.
resultsThe MS skin entry point (~ 30 mm posterior to ASIS) showed no gender differences in anteroposterior (males 32.92 ± 5.35 mm vs. females 29.51 ± 11.50 mm, P > 0.05) or craniocaudal (males 7.51 ± 5.51 mm vs. females 7.26 ± 5.69 mm, P > 0.05) distances from anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS); most points (58% males, 67% females) clustered in the ASIS lateral-superior region (P = 0.346). Males had significantly larger maximum screw diameter (7.02 ± 0.91 mm vs. 6.41 ± 0.78 mm, P < 0.001) and longer corridor length (76.21 ± 8.80 mm vs. 63.93 ± 7.88 mm, P < 0.001) than females, while insertion angles (medial ~ 52°, posterior ~ 56°) were gender-uniform (P > 0.05). All fixation methods exhibited stress levels below bone/implant yield strength. MS fixation had lower maximum displacement than SRPS and DRPS under superior-inferior (0.057 mm vs. 0.102 mm/0.070 mm) and lateral-medial (0.751 mm vs. 1.300 mm/0.897 mm) loading, with stress distribution comparable to RLS and superior to plate-based methods.
conclusionsStandardized anatomical parameters (ASIS-based entry point with approximately 52° medial and 56° posterior insertion angles) enable gender-neutral initial MS localization, while screw diameter and length should be gender-specific. Biomechanically, MS fixation demonstrates comparable or superior stability to conventional methods for APCF, suggesting its potential as a minimally invasive alternative. Future multicenter clinical trials are required to validate its clinical translation potential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42230349What 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.