Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26338344›Full record

ArticleInternational orthopaedics2016

Incidence of and risk factors for femoral fractures in the gap between hip and knee implants.

José Antonio Valle Cruz, Antonio Luis Urda, Laura Serrano, Francisco Alberto Rodriguez-Gonzalez, Julio Otero, Enrique Moro, Luis López-Durán

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International orthopaedics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Interprosthetic femoral fractures: management challenges.Orthopedic research and reviews · 2019
    Review
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

José Antonio Valle CruzDepartment of Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, C. Prof. Martin Lagos s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain.
Antonio Luis UrdaDepartment of Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, C. Prof. Martin Lagos s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain. urda.antonio@gmail.com.
Laura SerranoDepartment of Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, C. Prof. Martin Lagos s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain.
Francisco Alberto Rodriguez-GonzalezDepartment of Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, C. Prof. Martin Lagos s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain.
Julio OteroDepartment of Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, C. Prof. Martin Lagos s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain.
Enrique MoroDepartment of Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, C. Prof. Martin Lagos s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain.
Luis López-DuránDepartment of Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Universidad Complutense Madrid, Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study was to analyse the incidence of interprosthetic femoral fractures and describe risk factors for them.

methodsBetween 2009 and 2015, we selected patients who were carrying two implants (hip and knee) in the same femur. We collected demographic and clinical data and performed a radiological evaluation to analyse the gap between implants-the femoral canal area and total femoral area-in the axial plane. We defined interprosthetic fracture as that corresponding to a Vancouver type C fracture and types 1 and 2 according to the Su classification.

resultsWe studied 68 patients who had total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and 44 patients who had total hip arthroplasty (THA); 24 patients an intramedullary nail. We found six interprosthetic fractures (8.8 %), all in patients with a non-cemented THA. There was a tendency towards statistical difference (p = 0.08). Patients with an additional implant at the proximal femur were statistically less likely to have an interprosthetic fracture (p = 0.04). In radiological results, we found more interprosthetic fractures in patients who had an increased femoral canal area in the axial plane just distal to the tip of the hip implant.

conclusionsIdentifying risk factors for this specific type of fracture may facilitate their prevention. Better implant stability and the presence of a gap between stems in a lower canal zone appear to hinder the occurrence of interprosthetic fractures.

Indexed as

AgedArthroplasty, Replacement, HipArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeFemoral FracturesFemurFracture Fixation, InternalHip ProsthesisHumansIncidenceKnee ProsthesisRadiographyRisk FactorsFemoral gap fractureInterimplant fractureInterprosthetic fractureIpsilateral femoral implantsPeriprosthetic fracture

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.