ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2022
Comparative study of Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic fractures treated by internal fixation versus stem revision.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of open reduction internal fixation versus revision arthroplasty around Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Pooled it
- Stem revision vs. internal fixation in Vancouver B2/B3 periprosthetic hip fractures: systematic review and metanalysis.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Osteosynthesis versus revision arthroplasty in Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023Pooled it
- Hook plate fixation and the importance of anatomical reduction in periprosthetic hip fractures: a retrospective single-centre study at a United Kingdom District General Hospital.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Managing Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures: is open reduction and internal fixation superior to stem revision? : A comparative analysis with a minimum 5-year follow-up.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Complications and Mortality of Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Around Cementless Femoral Stems: A Mid- to Long- Term Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Periprosthetic femoral fractures: more comminution and stem loosening with cemented implants-a retrospective cohort study.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Article
- Cementless long-stem fixation in periprosthetic clamshell fracture: a biomechanical investigation.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures-Beyond B2.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2024Review
- Long stem revision versus short stem revision with plate osteosynthesis for Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femoral fracture: a comparative study of eighty five cases.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Comparative outcomes of uncemented and cemented stem revision in managing periprosthetic femoral fractures: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2024Article
- Analysis of complications in 97 periprosthetic Vancouver B2 fractures treated either by internal fixation or revision arthroplasty.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Article
- Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures: clinical and radiological outcomes from a tertiary care center.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Article
- Treatment algorithm in Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures: osteosynthesis vs revision arthroplasty.EFORT open reviews · 2022Review
- Personalized Hip Joint Replacement with Large Diameter Head: Current Concepts.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCurrently, accepted treatment for periprosthetic femoral fractures with loose femoral stem indicates its revision; however, recent studies have proposed treating Vancouver type B2 fractures via internal fixation without stem revision, particularly in the elderly or multi-morbid patients. Despite indications for stem revision, some surgeons tend to perform internal fixation. The main goal of this study was therefore to identify the parameters that were significantly different comparing internal fixation to stem revision for Vancouver type B2 fractures.
methodsEighty-one Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures, treated between 2010 and 2019, were analysed. The internal fixation (ORIF) and the revision groups were compared. Patients' age, BMI, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) score, anaesthesia type, operating time, blood loss, surgeons' experience, post-operative weight-bearing, length of hospital stay, and radiological outcome using AGORA roentgenographic assessment were analysed.
resultsPatients chosen for ORIF were significantly older than those treated by stem revision (85.4 vs 75.1 years; p = 0.002). Blood loss was 390.7 and 1141.6 ml in the ORIF and revision groups, respectively (p < 0.0001). The surgical times were 134.5 and 225 min in the ORIF and revision groups, respectively (p < 0.0001). Our analysis of BMI, ASA score, anaesthesia type, length of hospital stay, surgeons' experience and radiological outcome, were not significantly different between the two groups.
conclusionRevision did not exhibit better radiological results; moreover, internal fixation resulted in significantly less perioperative blood loss and a shorter operating time, concluding that ORIF is a viable alternative to revision arthroplasty, particularly in older patients.
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.