↓ Skip to main content

Biomechanical analysis of plate systems for proximal humerus fractures: a systematic literature review

Overview of attention for article published in BioMedical Engineering OnLine, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
157 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Biomechanical analysis of plate systems for proximal humerus fractures: a systematic literature review
Published in
BioMedical Engineering OnLine, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12938-018-0479-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ali Jabran, Chris Peach, Lei Ren

Abstract

Proximal humerus fractures are the third most common in the human body but their management remains controversial. Open reduction and internal fixation with plates is one of the leading modes of operative treatment for these fractures. The development of technologies and techniques for these plates, during the recent decades, promise a bright future for their clinical use. A comprehensive review of in vitro biomechanical studies is needed for the comparison of plates' mechanical performance and the testing methodologies. This will not only guide clinicians with plate selection but also with the design of future in vitro biomechanical studies. This review was aimed to systematically categorise and review the in vitro biomechanical studies of these plates based on their protocols and discuss their results. The technologies and techniques investigated in these studies were categorised and compared to reach a census where possible. Web of Science and Scopus database search yielded 62 studies. Out of these, 51 performed axial loading, torsion, bending and/or combined bending and axial loading while 11 simulated complex glenohumeral movements by using tendons. Loading conditions and set-up, failure criteria and performance parameters, as well as results for each study, were reviewed. Only two studies tested four-part fracture model while the rest investigated two- and three-part fractures. In ten studies, synthetic humeri were tested instead of cadaveric ones. In addition to load-displacement data, three-dimensional motion analysis systems, digital image correlation and acoustic emission testing have been used for measurement. Overall, PHILOS was the most tested plate and locking plates demonstrated better mechanical performance than non-locking ones. Conflicting results have been published for their comparison with non-locking blade plates and polyaxial locking screws. Augmentation with cement [calcium phosphate or poly(methyl methacrylate)] or allografts (fibular and femoral head) was found to improve bone-plate constructs' mechanical performance. Controversy still lies over the use of rigid and semi-rigid implants and the insertion of inferomedial screws for calcar region support. This review will guide the design of in vitro and in silico biomechanical tests and also supplement the study of clinical literature.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 157 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 24 15%
Researcher 20 13%
Student > Master 17 11%
Other 12 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 7%
Other 27 17%
Unknown 46 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 25%
Engineering 40 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 55 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,671,229
of 24,998,746 outputs
Outputs from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#362
of 860 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,687
of 332,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#8
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,998,746 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 860 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,175 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.