ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2018
The Baba classification focused on implant designs is useful in setting the therapeutic strategy for interprosthetic femoral fracture.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Introducing the Universal Periprosthetic Femur Fracture (UPFF) Classification: All Fractures Femur.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- [Interprosthetic femoral fractures : Osteosynthesis, megaendoprosthesis, limb salvage?]Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Which B2 Fractures Can Be Treated with ORIF? Validation of the "Beyond the Vancouver Classification".Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Valgus osteotomy for atypical interprosthetic femoral fracture with lateral bowing of the femur.Trauma case reports · 2021Article
- A systematic review of the surgical outcomes of interprosthetic femur fractures.Journal of orthopaedicsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of femoral fracture with implants on the proximal and distal sides to verify whether actual fracture morphologies follow the fracture types of Baba classification focusing on implant designs useful for periprosthetic femoral fracture.
methodsProsthesis was present in 85 with periprosthetic femoral fractures. Excluding 73 patients with fracture around the femoral stem or fracture of the TKA femoral component alone, 12 patients with 14 legs with both implants were investigated. All patients were radiographically assessed for implant stability according to the Baba classification. For clinical evaluation, intra- and postoperative complications, the operation time, and intra-operative blood loss were investigated.
resultsThe Baba classification fracture type showed the implant as unstable and stable types in 3 and 11 legs, respectively. The consistency rate between the Baba classification-based judgment of plain radiograms acquired at the time of injury and actual surgical findings was 100%. As a result of treatment according to the Baba classification, bone union was achieved in all patients. There were no intra- or postoperative complications.
conclusionsApplying the Baba classification, implant stability could be sufficiently evaluated in not only periprosthetic femoral fractures following hip arthroplasty, but also interprosthetic femoral fractures, thereby verifying its usefulness in setting the treatment strategy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28956171What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.