Cargando…
Great debates in trauma biomechanics
At the 2021 annual meeting of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association, the Basic Science Focus Forum hosted its first ever debate-style symposium focused on biomechanics and fracture repair. The 3 subjects of debate were “Mechanics versus Biology—Which is ‘More Important’ to Consider?” “Locked Plate vers...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10166369/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37168029 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/OI9.0000000000000249 |
_version_ | 1785038429876125696 |
---|---|
author | Glatt, Vaida O'Toole, Robert Mehta, Samir Kandemir, Utku Ricci, William Nauth, Aaron Schemitsch, Emil Hast, Michael W. |
author_facet | Glatt, Vaida O'Toole, Robert Mehta, Samir Kandemir, Utku Ricci, William Nauth, Aaron Schemitsch, Emil Hast, Michael W. |
author_sort | Glatt, Vaida |
collection | PubMed |
description | At the 2021 annual meeting of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association, the Basic Science Focus Forum hosted its first ever debate-style symposium focused on biomechanics and fracture repair. The 3 subjects of debate were “Mechanics versus Biology—Which is ‘More Important’ to Consider?” “Locked Plate versus Forward Dynamization versus Reverse Dynamization—Which Way Should I Go?” and “Sawbones versus Cadaver Models—What Should I Believe Most?” These debates were held because fracture healing is a highly organized synergistic response between biological factors and the local mechanical environment. Multiple studies have demonstrated that both factors play roles in governing bone healing responses, and the causal relationships between the 2 remain unclear. The lack of clarity in this space has led to a spectrum of research with the common goal of helping surgeons make good decisions. Before reading further, the reader should understand that the questions posed in the debate titles are unanswerable and might represent a false choice. Instead, the reader should appreciate that the debates were held to gain a more thorough understanding of these topics based on the current state of the art of experimental and clinical studies, by using an engaging and thought-provoking format. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10166369 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101663692023-05-09 Great debates in trauma biomechanics Glatt, Vaida O'Toole, Robert Mehta, Samir Kandemir, Utku Ricci, William Nauth, Aaron Schemitsch, Emil Hast, Michael W. OTA Int Standard Review Article At the 2021 annual meeting of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association, the Basic Science Focus Forum hosted its first ever debate-style symposium focused on biomechanics and fracture repair. The 3 subjects of debate were “Mechanics versus Biology—Which is ‘More Important’ to Consider?” “Locked Plate versus Forward Dynamization versus Reverse Dynamization—Which Way Should I Go?” and “Sawbones versus Cadaver Models—What Should I Believe Most?” These debates were held because fracture healing is a highly organized synergistic response between biological factors and the local mechanical environment. Multiple studies have demonstrated that both factors play roles in governing bone healing responses, and the causal relationships between the 2 remain unclear. The lack of clarity in this space has led to a spectrum of research with the common goal of helping surgeons make good decisions. Before reading further, the reader should understand that the questions posed in the debate titles are unanswerable and might represent a false choice. Instead, the reader should appreciate that the debates were held to gain a more thorough understanding of these topics based on the current state of the art of experimental and clinical studies, by using an engaging and thought-provoking format. Wolters Kluwer 2023-05-04 /pmc/articles/PMC10166369/ /pubmed/37168029 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/OI9.0000000000000249 Text en Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. |
spellingShingle | Standard Review Article Glatt, Vaida O'Toole, Robert Mehta, Samir Kandemir, Utku Ricci, William Nauth, Aaron Schemitsch, Emil Hast, Michael W. Great debates in trauma biomechanics |
title | Great debates in trauma biomechanics |
title_full | Great debates in trauma biomechanics |
title_fullStr | Great debates in trauma biomechanics |
title_full_unstemmed | Great debates in trauma biomechanics |
title_short | Great debates in trauma biomechanics |
title_sort | great debates in trauma biomechanics |
topic | Standard Review Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10166369/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37168029 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/OI9.0000000000000249 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT glattvaida greatdebatesintraumabiomechanics AT otoolerobert greatdebatesintraumabiomechanics AT mehtasamir greatdebatesintraumabiomechanics AT kandemirutku greatdebatesintraumabiomechanics AT ricciwilliam greatdebatesintraumabiomechanics AT nauthaaron greatdebatesintraumabiomechanics AT schemitschemil greatdebatesintraumabiomechanics AT hastmichaelw greatdebatesintraumabiomechanics |