Evidence mapPaperPMID 40201925Full record

ReviewIndian journal of orthopaedics2025

Role of Augmentation in the Fixation of Osteoporotic Fractures.

Chinmoy Das, Partha Pratim Das

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

2 authors.

Chinmoy DasDepartment of Orthopaedics, Tezpur Medical College and Hospital, Tezpur, Assam India.ORCID 0000-0002-2857-7552
Partha Pratim DasDepartment of Orthopaedics, Tezpur Medical College and Hospital, Tezpur, Assam India.ORCID 0000-0001-8483-6355

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Osteoporotic fractures present a significant challenge due to the compromised bone quality, leading to complications in traditional fracture fixation methods. Augmentation techniques have emerged as a valuable approach to enhance the stability of fracture fixation in osteoporotic patients. Aim: This review explores the various augmentation methods used in fracture management, including polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) and calcium phosphate cements, as well as novel injectable materials. Additionally, the role of biomechanical augmentation techniques, such as locked plating and hybrid fixation, is discussed in enhancing fixation strength. Clinical applications in vertebral, proximal femur, and upper extremity fractures are examined, with a focus on the effectiveness of augmentation in improving patient outcomes. Despite the benefits, augmentation presents challenges, such as the risks associated with cement leakage and the economic burden on healthcare systems. The review also highlights future directions, including the development of bioactive and biodegradable materials, as well as innovations in minimally invasive techniques. Conclusion: Overall, augmentation plays a crucial role in addressing the limitations of traditional fixation in osteoporotic bone, offering promising solutions to improve fracture management.

Indexed as

AugmentationBiomechanical fixationBone cementFracture fixationOsteoporotic fractures

Identifiers

PMID40201925
PMCPMC11973026

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.