ArticleIranian journal of veterinary research2025
A biomechanical study of a novel multi axial circular external fixation device for stabilization of a bovine cadaveric tibial fracture gap model.
Article in Iranian journal of veterinary research, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Circular external fixators are widely used in orthopaedic fracture management but often face limitations in complex fractures due to their rigid structure. The multi axial circular external fixator offers increased flexibility and adjustability, making it a promising alternative for cases involving anatomical variability. Aims: The present study aimed to compare the biomechanical properties, including stiffness and strength, of a novel multi-axial circular fixator (MCEF) with a traditional full-ring circular external fixator (CEF) using buffalo tibia fracture model. Methods: The study used eighteen buffalo tibiae divided into three groups: intact bones, CEF, and MCEF constructs. Each construct was subjected to axial compression and torsion tests. The constructs were subjected to loads until failure, and load-displacement curves were generated for each sample. Axial compression and torsion tests were performed to evaluate the biomechanical performance of both fixators. Mechanical parameters such as stress, stiffness, yield load, resilience energy, failure load, and maximum torque were measured and analysed. Appropriate statistical tests were performed to compare between groups. Results: CEF demonstrated higher stiffness in axial compression and bending as compared with MCEF, which showed greater flexibility under both axial and torsional loads. MCEF, however, provided enhanced multi-planar adaptability, making it better suited for fractures in anatomically variable regions. In torsion, CEF exhibited higher maximum torque and torsional strength. Conclusion: CEF provided greater axial and bending stiffness. The MCEF design allows flexibility and adaptability providing better optimization of fracture stabilization in complex fracture patterns, making it a viable alternative in large animal fracture management.
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.