Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33496867›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2021

Double fractures of the femur: a review of 16 patients.

Andrea Angelini, Andreas F Mavrogenis, Alberto Crimì, Jim Georgoulis, Spyros Sioutis, Achilles Bekos, Vasilios G Igoumenou, Maria Chiara Cerchiaro, Antonio Berizzi, Pietro Ruggieri

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrea AngeliniDepartment of Orthopaedics and Orthopaedic Oncology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Andreas F MavrogenisFirst Department of Orthopaedics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Medicine, Athens, Greece. afm@otenet.gr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0807-0719
Alberto CrimìDepartment of Orthopaedics and Orthopaedic Oncology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Jim GeorgoulisFirst Department of Orthopaedics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Medicine, Athens, Greece.
Spyros SioutisFirst Department of Orthopaedics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Medicine, Athens, Greece.
Achilles BekosFirst Department of Orthopaedics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Medicine, Athens, Greece.
Vasilios G IgoumenouFirst Department of Orthopaedics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Medicine, Athens, Greece.
Maria Chiara CerchiaroDepartment of Orthopaedics and Orthopaedic Oncology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Antonio BerizziDepartment of Orthopaedics and Orthopaedic Oncology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Pietro RuggieriDepartment of Orthopaedics and Orthopaedic Oncology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GRUniversity of Padua · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDouble ipsilateral femoral fractures account for 1-9% of femoral fractures. There is no clear advantage between single or double implant osteosynthesis. We present a series of patients with double ipsilateral femoral fractures, to address the challenges in treatment, namely the implants for osteosynthesis and complications of treatment. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe retrospectively studied 16 patients (7 men, 9 women; mean age, 51 years) treated from January 2015 to December 2018. Motor vehicle accidents were the leading cause of injury. Types of fractures were pertrochanteric and shaft (6), pertrochanteric and distal (2), double shaft (3), neck and shaft (2), neck and distal (1), shaft and distal (1), and triple fracture including a pertrochanteric, shaft and distal (1). In five patients, two different implants were used (plate and screws, cannulated hip screws, femoral nail), whereas in 11 patients a long femoral nail was used.

resultsFourteen patients experienced union at a mean of 3 months (2-6 months). Two patients experienced nonunion: both had plate and screws osteosynthesis. One patient died 15 days after admission from polytrauma and another patient experienced central venous catheter thrombosis and pneumonia. Surgical complications (2 patients) included a thigh skin necrosis, and external fixator pin tract infection/infected non-union. Weight-bearing was delayed in all patients; full weight-bearing was allowed in 11 patients at 4 months postoperatively, and in four patients at 5 months.

conclusionDue to the rarity and the difficulty of standardization of double ipsilateral femoral fractures, there is variable information on the optimal osteosynthesis of the fractures and the outcome of the patients. It seems that closed reduction and long hip nailing is the treatment of choice, with few complications.

Indexed as

Femoral FracturesFracture Fixation, IntramedullaryBone NailsFemaleFemurFracture Fixation, InternalHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesDoubleFemurFracturesIpsilateralNailingORIF

Identifiers

PMID33496867
OpenAlexW3125640145

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.