Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland
Search for other papers by Martin Riegger in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Nermine Habib in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Service of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Surgery, EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland
Search for other papers by Enrique Adrian Testa in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland
Search for other papers by Jochen Müller in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Marco Guidi in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland
Search for other papers by Christian Candrian in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-union. In this light, evidence-based data could guide surgeons in understanding the biomechanical properties of the different options to choose the most suitable implant and provide the best fixation strategy. Figure 1 Classic crossed screw fixation
Search for other papers by Wout Füssenich in
Google Scholar
PubMed
University Hospital for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery Pius-Hospital, Medical Campus University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany
Search for other papers by Gesine H Seeber in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Julian R Zwoferink in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Matthijs P Somford in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Martin Stevens in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-union of 2.8% compared to 6.5% for plate fixation, 11.1% for crossed screw fixation, and 12.5% for a plate with a cross plate compression screw. Superior biomechanical stability explains the low non-union frequency of fixation with a plate with a lag screw