Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32189949›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2020

Management of periprosthetic fracture following total knee arthroplasty- a retrospective study to decide when to fix or when to revise?

Nikhil Verma, Anuj Jain, Chander Pal, Simon Thomas, Shekhar Agarwal, Prateek Garg

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2020. 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
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Revision arthroplasty in 2020.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma
    Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nikhil VermaDelhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedics (DITO), Sant Parmanand Hospital, 18 Sham Nath Marg, Civil Lines, New Delhi, Delhi, 110054, India.
Anuj JainDelhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedics (DITO), Sant Parmanand Hospital, 18 Sham Nath Marg, Civil Lines, New Delhi, Delhi, 110054, India.
Chander PalDelhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedics (DITO), Sant Parmanand Hospital, 18 Sham Nath Marg, Civil Lines, New Delhi, Delhi, 110054, India.
Simon ThomasDelhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedics (DITO), Sant Parmanand Hospital, 18 Sham Nath Marg, Civil Lines, New Delhi, Delhi, 110054, India.
Shekhar AgarwalDelhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedics (DITO), Sant Parmanand Hospital, 18 Sham Nath Marg, Civil Lines, New Delhi, Delhi, 110054, India.
Prateek GargDelhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedics (DITO), Sant Parmanand Hospital, 18 Sham Nath Marg, Civil Lines, New Delhi, Delhi, 110054, India.
Sant Parmanand Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePeriprosthetic fractures around total knee arthroplasty are relatively rare complication comprises to 0.3-2.5%. But these injuries are often complex and challenging for the surgeons due to ageing population in conjunction with severe osteoporosis. The management option varies from conservative to internal fixation or revision surgery. Thus this study was conducted to analyze the results of various methods of treatment of periprosthetic fractures following TKA and to form the optimal treatment guidelines for fixation or revision. MATERIAL AND

methods51 cases diagnosed with periprosthetic fracture were enrolled and underwent surgical intervention. Type of primary prosthesis, interval between TKA and periprosthetic fracture, type of fracture, prosthesis stability and mode of fixation of fracture, any revision surgery and complication were noted.

resultsThe mean age of all patients was 65.89 years. The mean interval between the index surgery and periprosthetic fracture was 6 years (Range 2 months to 10 years) in male and 18.5 months (Range 4 days to 7 years) in female. 44 (86%) fractures were femoral, 4 (8%) fractures were tibial and 3 (6%) fractures were of patella. The mean knee society score (KSS) & oxford knee score (OKS) were found to be good for revision group as compared to the fixation group at final follow up.

conclusionIn presence of poor bone stock, far distal fracture configuration, comminution, severe osteoporosis, difficulty in achieving stability with plates & old age-revision TKA is a viable option with stemmed components.

Indexed as

Locking platesMegaprosthesisPeriprosthetic fractureRevision TKAVarus collapse

Identifiers

PMID32189949
PMCPMC7068021
OpenAlexW2981034712

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.