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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Glatt, Vaida, O'Toole, Robert, Mehta, Samir, Kandemir, Utku, Ricci, William, Nauth, Aaron, Schemitsch, Emil, Hast, Michael W.
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