Materials Map

Discover the materials research landscape. Find experts, partners, networks.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Contact

The Materials Map is an open tool for improving networking and interdisciplinary exchange within materials research. It enables cross-database search for cooperation and network partners and discovering of the research landscape.

The dashboard provides detailed information about the selected scientist, e.g. publications. The dashboard can be filtered and shows the relationship to co-authors in different diagrams. In addition, a link is provided to find contact information.

×

Materials Map under construction

The Materials Map is still under development. In its current state, it is only based on one single data source and, thus, incomplete and contains duplicates. We are working on incorporating new open data sources like ORCID to improve the quality and the timeliness of our data. We will update Materials Map as soon as possible and kindly ask for your patience.

To Graph

1.080 Topics available

To Map

977 Locations available

693.932 PEOPLE
693.932 People People

693.932 People

Show results for 693.932 people that are selected by your search filters.

←

Page 1 of 27758

→
←

Page 1 of 0

→
PeopleLocationsStatistics
Naji, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 3
  • 2025
Motta, Antonella
  • 8
  • 52
  • 159
  • 2025
Aletan, Dirar
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0
  • 2025
Mohamed, Tarek
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2025
Ertürk, Emre
  • 2
  • 3
  • 0
  • 2025
Taccardi, Nicola
  • 9
  • 81
  • 75
  • 2025
Kononenko, Denys
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
  • 2025
Petrov, R. H.Madrid
  • 46
  • 125
  • 1k
  • 2025
Alshaaer, MazenBrussels
  • 17
  • 31
  • 172
  • 2025
Bih, L.
  • 15
  • 44
  • 145
  • 2025
Casati, R.
  • 31
  • 86
  • 661
  • 2025
Muller, Hermance
  • 1
  • 11
  • 0
  • 2025
Kočí, JanPrague
  • 28
  • 34
  • 209
  • 2025
Šuljagić, Marija
  • 10
  • 33
  • 43
  • 2025
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-ArtemiBrussels
  • 14
  • 22
  • 158
  • 2025
Azam, Siraj
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2025
Ospanova, Alyiya
  • 1
  • 6
  • 0
  • 2025
Blanpain, Bart
  • 568
  • 653
  • 13k
  • 2025
Ali, M. A.
  • 7
  • 75
  • 187
  • 2025
Popa, V.
  • 5
  • 12
  • 45
  • 2025
Rančić, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 0
  • 2025
Ollier, Nadège
  • 28
  • 75
  • 239
  • 2025
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro
  • 4
  • 8
  • 25
  • 2025
Landes, Michael
  • 1
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2025
Rignanese, Gian-Marco
  • 15
  • 98
  • 805
  • 2025

Stockton, David

  • Google
  • 1
  • 4
  • 3

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (1/1 displayed)

  • 2024Radiographic Union Assessment in Surgically Treated Distal Femur Fractures3citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Wang, Alice
1 / 2 shared
Kim, Taylor
1 / 1 shared
Flury, Andreas
1 / 1 shared
Lefaivre, Kelly
1 / 1 shared
Chart of publication period
2024

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Wang, Alice
  • Kim, Taylor
  • Flury, Andreas
  • Lefaivre, Kelly
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Radiographic Union Assessment in Surgically Treated Distal Femur Fractures

  • Wang, Alice
  • Kim, Taylor
  • Flury, Andreas
  • Lefaivre, Kelly
  • Stockton, David
Abstract

<jats:sec><jats:title>Background:</jats:title><jats:p>Distal femur fractures are known to have challenging nonunion rates. Despite various available treatment methods aimed to improve union, optimal interventions are yet to be determined. Importantly, there remains no standard agreement on what defines radiographic union. Although various proposed criteria of defining radiographic union exist in the literature, there is no clear consensus on which criteria provide the most precise measurement. The use of inconsistent measures of fracture healing between studies can be problematic and limits their generalizability. Therefore, this systematic review aims to identify how fracture union is defined based on radiographic parameters for surgically treated distal femur fractures in current literature.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods:</jats:title><jats:p>In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science Core Collection databases were searched from inception to October 2022. Studies that addressed surgically treated distal femur fractures with reported radiographic union assessment were included. Outcomes extracted included radiographic definition of union; any testing of validity, reliability, or responsiveness; reported union rate; reported time to fracture union; and any functional outcomes correlated with radiographic union.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results:</jats:title><jats:p>Sixty articles with 3,050 operatively treated distal femur fractures were included. Operative interventions included lateral locked plate (42 studies), intramedullary nail (15 studies), dynamic condylar screw or blade plate (7 studies), dual plate or plate and nail construct (5 studies), distal anterior-posterior/posterior-anterior screws (1 study), and external fixation with a circular frame (1 study). The range of mean follow-up time reported was 4.3 to 44 months. The most common definitions of fracture union included “bridging or callus formation across 3 of 4 cortices” in 26 (43%) studies, “bony bridging of cortices” in 21 (35%) studies, and “complete bridging of cortices” in 9 (15%) studies. Two studies included additional assessment of radiographic union using the Radiographic Union Scale in Tibial fracture (RUST) or modified Radiographic Union Scale in Tibial fracture (mRUST) scores. One study included description of validity, and the other study included reliability testing. The reported mean union rate of distal femur fractures was 89% (range 58%-100%). The mean time to fracture union was documented in 49 studies and found to be 18 weeks (range 12-36 weeks) in 2,441 cases. No studies reported correlations between functional outcomes and radiographic parameters.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion:</jats:title><jats:p>The current literature evaluating surgically treated distal femur fractures lacks consistent definition of radiographic fracture union, and the appropriate time point to make this judgement is unclear. To advance surgical optimization, it is necessary that future research uses validated, reliable, and continuous measures of radiographic bone healing and correlation with functional outcomes.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Level of Evidence:</jats:title><jats:p><jats:underline>Level IV</jats:underline>. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</jats:p></jats:sec>

Topics
  • impedance spectroscopy
  • size-exclusion chromatography