ArticleScientific reports2026
Cable versus cerclage wire in weber tension band fixation for transverse olecranon fractures: a biomechanical study in a synthetic ulna model.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
Stable fixation of displaced simple transverse olecranon fractures is required to maintain reduction under triceps traction and enable early elbow motion. Although Weber tension band fixation is widely used, the biomechanical influence of tension band material (cable vs cerclage wire) across different pin/anchorage designs remains unclear. This study compared resistance to fracture-line separation among six Weber-based constructs in a standardized synthetic ulna model. Sixty commercially available synthetic ulnae were osteotomized to create a transverse olecranon fracture model (Mayo type IIA) and randomly assigned to six groups (n = 10/group): bicortical pins, eyelet pins, and AA crimp constructs, each combined with either cable or cerclage wire in a figure-of-eight configuration. Specimens underwent monotonic tensile loading simulating triceps traction. Forces corresponding to 2 mm and 3 mm fracture-line separation were recorded. Between-group comparisons were performed within cable and cerclage subgroups, and cable-versus-cerclage comparisons were conducted within matched constructs (α = 0.05). At 2-mm separation, mean forces (N) were 316.1 ± 98.1 (bicortical cable), 277.0 ± 101.7 (eyelet cable), and 249.1 ± 104.2 (AA crimp cable), versus 273.1 ± 34.4 (bicortical cerclage), 283.6 ± 38.4 (eyelet cerclage), and 282.2 ± 36.9 (AA crimp cerclage). At 3-mm separation, mean forces were 340.5 ± 129.6, 336.5 ± 111.0, and 319.4 ± 78.8 for the cable constructs, and 332.9 ± 48.3, 354.7 ± 42.4, and 349.0 ± 37.2 for the cerclage constructs (bicortical, eyelet, and AA crimp, respectively). No significant differences were observed among pin/anchorage designs within the cable or cerclage subgroups at either threshold (all p > 0.05). Similarly, cable versus cerclage comparisons within matched constructs showed no significant differences at 2 mm or 3 mm (all p > 0.05). Under the specific conditions of this synthetic ulna model and monotonic tensile loading protocol, no statistically significant differences were detected between cable- and cerclage wire-based Weber tension-band constructs at either the 2-mm or 3-mm separation threshold. Bicortical, eyelet, and AA-crimp-based configurations also showed no significant differences in early gapping resistance. These findings should be interpreted as controlled monotonic early-separation data and not as evidence of clinical equivalence or fatigue durability.
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.