ArticleEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2019
The value of a standardized and reproducible surgical technique in treatment of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures: our experience.
Article in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The race for the classification of proximal periprosthetic femoral fractures : Vancouver vs Unified Classification System (UCS) - a systematic review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo retrospectively review results and complications of our standardized surgical technique addressed exclusively to Vancouver B2 fractures.
methodsFrom January 2006 to July 2016, we treated 235 consecutive patients, 47 males and 188 females, mean age at surgery of 71 ± 10 years, with periprosthetic B2 fractures. Exclusion criteria were other kind of periprosthetic fractures and other femoral fractures. The patients were assessed clinically and radiographically following our standard protocol at the last available follow-up. The mean follow-up time was 6.4 years. Radiographic evaluation was performed according to Beals and Tower's criteria and clinical evaluation was performed using the Harris Hip Score and clinical exam.
resultsFrom the starter cohort of 235, 207 patients (88.1%) were fully evaluated, while 28 were lost to follow-up. According to Beal and Tower's criteria, we found excellent results in 72 patients (34.8%), good results in 133 patients (64.3%), and poor results in 2 patients (0.9%). Mean HHS was 75 ± 9 points, with a statistically significant correlation between good functional results and better radiographic assessment (p = 0.001). The use of support plate (p = 0.008) and the acetabular revision (p = 0.002) showed a statistically significant distribution with worse radiographic results. Late complications detected were ten dislocations.
conclusionOur experience suggests that using a standardized and reproducible surgical technique, as our technique proposed, can surely reduce surgical time, the complication rate, and the mortality rate. During acetabular evaluation, the choice of performing a cup revision must be weighed on overall patient's assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29922893What 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.