Cited by 58Bone fractures and treatmentsSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesBone health and osteoporosis research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Numerical Simulation of Callus Healing for Optimization of Fracture Fixation Stiffness

Open access

Abstract

The stiffness of fracture fixation devices together with musculoskeletal loading defines the mechanical environment within a long bone fracture, and can be quantified by the interfragmentary movement. In vivo results suggested that this can have acceleratory or inhibitory influences, depending on direction and magnitude of motion, indicating that some complications in fracture treatment could be avoided by optimizing the fixation stiffness. However, general statements are difficult to make due to the limited number of experimental findings. The aim of this study was therefore to numerically investigate healing outcomes under various combinations of shear and axial fixation stiffness, and to detect the optimal configuration. A calibrated and established numerical model was used to predict fracture healing for numerous combinations of axial and shear fixation stiffness under physiological, superimposed, axial compressive and translational shear loading in sheep. Characteristic maps of healing outcome versus fixation stiffness (axial and shear) were created. The results suggest that delayed healing of 3 mm transversal fracture gaps will occur for highly flexible or very rigid axial fixation, which was corroborated by in vivo findings. The optimal fixation stiffness for ovine long bone fractures was predicted to be 1000-2500 N/mm in the axial and >300 N/mm in the shear direction. In summary, an optimized, moderate axial stiffness together with certain shear stiffness enhances fracture healing processes. The negative influence of one improper stiffness can be compensated by adjustment of the stiffness in the other direction.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0101370

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Smaller fracture gaps require stiffer fixation and a lower IFM.

    “Smaller fracture gaps require stiffer fixation and a lower IFM (31).”

    From Methods to accelerate fracture healing – a narrative review from a clinical perspective (2024) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Results report that very high fixation rigidity gave the best healing outcome for the simulated 1 mm gap, and the Discussion links direct ossification of small gaps to minimal IFM. But the Discussion also says small gaps healed desirably almost independently of fixation stiffness, so the claim that they require stiffer fixation and lower IFM is too absolute. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. BG Ochs, 2012, Refracture of long bones after implant removal, Unfallchirurg, 115, 323

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Steiner, M., Claes, L., Ignatius, A., Simon, U., & Wehner, T.
Affiliations
Universität Ulm (DE)
Corresponding author
Steiner, Malte
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-07-03
Volume
9
Issue
7
Pages
e101370
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2090313174
Cited by
58
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2
FWCI
3.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Universität Ulm
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone fractures and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Spinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
Keywords
fracture healing, interfragmentary motion, axial stiffness, shear stiffness, long bone fractures, callus formation, sheep model, fracture fixation devices
MeSH terms
Animals, Bony Callus, Fracture Fixation, Models, Biological, Sheep, Tibial Fractures, Poisson Distribution, Fracture Healing, Elastic Modulus

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review