Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42804003›Full record

ArticleBiomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology2026

An analysis of different reconstruction techniques for the radius: a finite element analysis.

U Konopada, V Egger, L Dankl, M Nogler, R Arora, E Zanetti, C Bignardi, D Putzer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

U KonopadaDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Politecnico Di Torino, Corso Duca Degli Abruzzi, 24, 10129, Turin, Italy. ulyana.konopada@polito.it.
V EggerDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Inselspital University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 20, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
L DanklDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
M NoglerDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Experimental Orthopedics, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
R AroraDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstraße 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
E ZanettiDepartment of Engineering, Università Degli Studi Di Perugia, 06125, Perugia, Italy.
C BignardiDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Politecnico Di Torino, Corso Duca Degli Abruzzi, 24, 10129, Turin, Italy.
D PutzerDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Experimental Orthopedics, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.

Funding

Politecnico di Torino CUP E12B22000470006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pathological fractures due to metastatic bone disease frequently require palliative stabilization. While polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) provides immediate mechanical stabilization, its limited bending and multiaxial properties raise concerns. Reinforcement strategies such as plate fixation, intramedullary nails, and metallic augmentation have been proposed, yet their mechanical behavior under physiological loading remains insufficiently characterized. This study aims to evaluate the mechanical performance of three reconstruction strategies for a proximal radial defect: PMMA alone, PMMA combined with titanium plate-and-screw construct, and PMMA reinforced with a steel K-wire. A patient-specific workflow integrated musculoskeletal multibody model and finite element analysis. Muscle forces and elbow joint reaction forces were calculated for a static 90° shoulder flexion under two loading conditions: no external load and 2 kg mass applied at the center of mass of the hand. These forces were applied in finite element analysis in reconstructed forearm, and peak von Mises stress and displacements were evaluated. In loading scenario, elbow joint reaction force reached 314.4 N, and maximum muscle force was 120.8 N. In the PMMA-only construct, peak stress increased from 4.0 MPa (no load) to 12.0 MPa (with load). Plate fixation increased peak stress to 14.9 MPa in the loading case. K-wire reinforcement resulted in lowest PMMA peak stress (23% less with respect to PMMA-only and 38% less compared to titanium plate) but produced more pronounced displacement (29%) compared to plate fixation strategy. These findings suggest complementary mechanical benefits: K-wire reinforcement most effectively reduced peak cement stress, whereas plate fixation provided superior global stiffness.

Indexed as

Finite Element AnalysisPlastic Surgery ProceduresRadiusBiomechanical PhenomenaBone PlatesHumansPolymethyl MethacrylateStress, MechanicalPolymethyl MethacrylateBone reconstructionCementoplastyK-wire reinforcementMusculoskeletal modelingPlate fixationPolymethylmethacrylate (PMMA)

Identifiers

PMID42804003
PMCPMC13619793

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.