Great debates in trauma biomechanics.

Vaida Glatt, Robert O'Toole, Samir Mehta, William Ricci, Aaron Nauth, Emil Schemitsch, Michael W Hast
{"title":"Great debates in trauma biomechanics.","authors":"Vaida Glatt,&nbsp;Robert O'Toole,&nbsp;Samir Mehta,&nbsp;William Ricci,&nbsp;Aaron Nauth,&nbsp;Emil Schemitsch,&nbsp;Michael W Hast","doi":"10.1097/OI9.0000000000000249","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":74381,"journal":{"name":"OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma","volume":"6 2 Suppl","pages":"e249"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/fe/84/oi9-6-e249.PMC10166369.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/OI9.0000000000000249","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

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.

创伤生物力学的大辩论。
在骨科创伤协会2021年年会上,基础科学焦点论坛举办了有史以来第一次辩论式研讨会,重点讨论生物力学和骨折修复。辩论的三个主题分别是“力学与生物学哪个‘更重要’需要考虑?”“锁定钢板与正向动力化与反向动力化我应该走哪条路?”和“锯骨与尸体模型我最应该相信什么?”之所以举行这些辩论,是因为骨折愈合是生物因素和局部机械因素之间高度组织化的协同反应环境多项研究表明,这两个因素都在控制骨愈合反应中发挥作用,两者之间的因果关系尚不清楚。这一领域的不明确导致了一系列的研究,其共同目标是帮助外科医生做出正确的决定。在进一步阅读之前,读者应该明白,辩论标题中提出的问题是无法回答的,可能代表错误的选择。相反,读者应该意识到,举行辩论是为了在实验和临床研究的现状基础上,通过使用引人入胜和发人深省的形式,对这些主题有更彻底的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信