ArticleActa medica Philippina2026
Axial Biomechanical Performance Evaluation of Locally-developed Modular External Fixator.
Article in Acta medica Philippina, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In the Philippines and other developing countries, access to high-stability external fixators for trauma-induced bone fracture management is limited, as modular external fixators, especially those with snap-on features, are manufactured overseas and are prohibitively expensive for most Filipino patients. Objective: This study aimed to assess the biomechanical performance of a locally-developed modular external fixator prototype for tibial diaphyseal fractures in comparison to available external fixators, such as Roger Anderson and Hoffmann. This provides an initial evaluation for the use of the external fixator as an alternative in terms of its stability. Methods: Using axial compression testing compliant with the ASTM F1541-24 standards, the ultimate strength, yield strength, safe strength, and stiffness were measured across various fixator types and tightening mechanisms, with or without the aid of a wrench. Statistical tools such as the t-test assuming equal variances, one-way analysis of variance, and Tukey-Kramer test with a 0.05 level of significance were used to determine any significant differences. Results: The mechanical performance of the external fixator prototype increased by a factor of 1.5 to 2.5 after the clamps were tightened with the wrench. However, when hand-tightened, it still performed sufficiently, showing a comparable mechanical performance with the Roger Anderson Fixator. In terms of the ultimate, safe, and yield strengths, it performed competitively in comparison with the Hoffmann system. However, there is a significant difference in stiffness between the prototype and the Hoffmann system. Conclusion: The locally-developed external fixator was comparable biomechanically to the commercially available external fixators and the prototypes in different studies.
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.