ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Improved primary stability and load transfer of a customized osseointegrated transfemoral prosthesis compared to a commercial one.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Lower limb osseointegrated prosthetics: are we standing on the edge of a new era?Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransfemoral osseointegrated prostheses, like other uncemented prostheses experience the risk of aseptic loosening and post-operative periprosthetic fractures, with an incidence between 3% and 30%. To date, however, osseointegrated off-the-shelf prostheses are manufactured in a limited number of sizes, and some patients do not meet the strict eligibility criteria of commercial devices. A customized osseointegrated stem was developed and a pre-clinical in vitro investigation of the stem was performed, to evaluate its biomechanical performance. MATERIALS AND
methodsSix human cadaveric femurs were implanted with commercial stems, while the six contralateral were implanted with customized stems. Three more femurs that did not meet the eligibility criteria for the commercial stems were implanted with the customized stems. Two different loading scenarios (compression-flexion, and torsion) were simulated to measure the primary implant stability and the load transfer. For both loading scenarios, the displacements of the implant with respect to the host bone, and the strains on the bone surface were measured using digital image correlation (DIC). To measure the pull-out force, a tensile force was applied to the prostheses.
resultsThe translational inducible micromotions during the compression-flexion test of the OsteoCustom stem were more than 4 times smaller than the commercial one (p < 0.05). The rotational inducible micromotions of the OsteoCustom stem were more than 3 times smaller than the commercial one (p < 0.05). Similar results were found from the torsional test. The full-field strain distribution of the commercial stem showed a slightly higher strain concentration near the stem tip (maximum principal strain = 1928±127 µɛ) than the OsteoCustom (maximum principal strain = 1758±130 µɛ). Similar results were found for the femurs that did not meet the eligibility criteria for the commercial stems and could be implanted with the OsteoCustom. No statistically significant difference was found in the extraction force between the two groups. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionThese results support the hypothesis that the OsteoCustom stem can offer better primary stability and load distribution compared to commercial implants. The outcome highlighted the potential benefits of the OsteoCustom prosthesis, which is capable of including a wider range of femoral anatomies than the current standard.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.