ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2020
[Periprosthetic fractures of the acetabulum: revision endoprosthetics].
Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Periprosthetic acetabular fractures: classifications, treatment and challenges].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeriprosthetic acetabular fractures are an increasing severe complication in revision arthroplasty. A differentiation is made between periprosthetic acetabular fractures (acute/traumatic fractures) and insufficiency fractures (chronic fractures).
objectiveThis article introduces a novel treatment algorithm that provides assistance in therapeutic decision making for implant selection and the anchoring philosophy based on diagnostic decision criteria and the relevant load-bearing osseous structures, taking the defect situation into account. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe article provides an overview of original and review articles.
resultsThe essential criteria for decisions in treatment planning are based on the stability of the primary cup, the load-bearing ability of the main anatomical structures and the resulting defect situation. For insufficiency fractures the reason for the revision and therefore the exclusion of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) must additionally be considered. In the case of proven PJI a two-stage or multistage prosthesis exchange must be carried out. Based on the extent of apparent bony defects and pelvic discontinuity, the spectrum of treatment options ranges up to implantation of individual patient custom-made acetabular components. DISCUSSION/
conclusionThis overview introduces a new treatment algorithm that provides assistance in decision making for traumatic periprosthetic acetabular fractures and insufficiency fractures. It also provides decision criteria for selection of implants and the surgical approach. Due to the complexity of revision arthroplasty often requiring specialized expertise in trauma and orthopedic surgery and experienced revision surgeons, the operative treatment of periprosthetic acetabular fractures should only be carried out in specialized orthopedic and trauma surgery centers with appropriate experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.