ArticleActa orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica2026
Which implant for Pauwels type 2 femoral neck fractures: a biomechanical study.
Article in Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveFemoral neck fractures (FNF) in young patients are relatively rare but can lead to severe complications if not treated appropriately. Pauwels type 2 fractures, characterized by moderate inclination, require surgical stabilization. However, no consensus exists regarding the optimal implant that provides superior biomechanical stability. This study aims to compare the biomechanical properties of 3 different fixation systems for the surgical treatment of Pauwels type 2 FNF. Methods: A total of 21 bovine femurs of similar age and size were selected and divided into 3 fixation groups: dynamic hip screw (DHS), cannulated screws (CS), and major plate (MP). Each specimen underwent axial compression testing to assess the maximum load-bearing capacity, shear force resistance, and deformation characteristics of the fixation methods. Results: The results showed that the CS group exhibited the highest shear stress resistance, followed by the DHS group, while the MP group showed significantly lower mechanical strength and elongation (P < .05). Although DHS provided substantial stability, CS demonstrated superior overall mechanical performance. In contrast, the MP system showed significantly lower resistance compared to the other 2 fixation methods. Conclusion: This biomechanical study highlights the importance of implant selection in the management of Pauwels type 2 FNF. Although previous investigations have questioned the adequacy of CS fixation in highly unstable Pauwels type 3 fractures, the results suggest that CS may be a reliable and effective option for the relatively more stable Pauwels type 2 pattern. Because the tests were performed on bovine femur models, which do not fully reflect the structural characteristics of human bone, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Further biomechanical studies using human cadaveric specimens are required to confirm the applicability of these results to clinical practice. Cite this article as: Aydın O, Kazez M, Say Y, Belhan O. Which implant for Pauwels type 2 femoral neck fractures: A biomechanical study. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc., 2026; 60(1), 0345, doi: 10.5152/j.aott.2026.25345.
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.