Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31572021›Full record

ReviewOrthopedic research and reviews2019

Interprosthetic femoral fractures: management challenges.

Joshua C Rozell, Dimitri E Delagrammaticas, Ran Schwarzkopf

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Orthopedic research and reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Retrograde nail/plate combination for interprosthetic femoral fractures: technical note and case series.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025
    Article
  5. Retrograde Femoral Lengthening Below a Total Hip Arthroplasty.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Interprosthetic Femoral Fractures Surgical Treatment in Geriatric Patients.Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

3 authors.

Joshua C RozellDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Langone Orthopaedic Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Dimitri E DelagrammaticasCentral Coast Orthopedics, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA.
Ran SchwarzkopfDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Langone Orthopaedic Hospital, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interprosthetic femur fractures are a rare but serious complication following total hip and knee arthroplasty. Classification systems have focused not only on diagnosis but also on treatment algorithm. Critical to the evaluation of patients with these fractures are an assessment of fracture location, bone quality, and the presence of stemmed implants. The gold standard for fracture fixation is locked plating with bicortical and unicortical screws, supplemented with wires or cables as needed. For patients with compromised bone stock or insufficient bony area for fixation, allograft augmentation with struts or interprosthetic sleeves may be used. For fractures with severe bone loss, conversion to a megaprosthesis or total femur replacement may be warranted.

Indexed as

interprostheticperiprosthetic fracturerevisiontotal hip arthroplastytotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID31572021
PMCPMC6754334

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.