Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34595045›Full record

ArticleGeriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation2021

A Long-Term Follow-Up of Post-Operative Periprosthetic Humeral Fracture in Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Michele Novi, Giuseppe Porcellini, Alessandro Donà, Luigi Tarallo, Gianmario Micheloni, Andrea Giorgini, Paolo Paladini, Fabio Catani

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Evaluation and treatment of postoperative periprosthetic humeral fragility fractures.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2023
    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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Michele NoviOrthopaedic and Traumatology Department, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4867-463X
Giuseppe PorcelliniOrthopaedic and Traumatology Department, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Alessandro DonàOrthopaedic and Traumatology Department, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Luigi TaralloOrthopaedic and Traumatology Department, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Gianmario MicheloniOrthopaedic and Traumatology Department, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Andrea GiorginiOrthopaedic and Traumatology Department, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Paolo PaladiniOrthopaedic and Traumatology Department, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Fabio CataniOrthopaedic and Traumatology Department, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring the last decades, the growing number of shoulder replacement has increased the associated complications. Periprosthetic fractures have a low incidence but can be a severe clinical condition, especially in elderly population. There are still no guidelines to define the best treatment protocol for post-operative periprosthetic humeral fractures. Factors associated to these fractures and consequently the decision-making for the best treatment seem to be patient-related but also correlated with the type of implant. The aim of this study is to analyze the patient's risk factors, fracture pattern, implant type and treatment, evaluating the outcome with a long-term follow-up.

methodsA retrospective study was performed on more than 2700 shoulder prostheses implanted over 10 years in two specialized centers, identifying 19 patients who underwent surgery for post-operative periprosthetic fracture. Gender, age, comorbidities, type of prosthetic implant, type of fracture, and cortical index of each patient were evaluated. All patients underwent surgery and were evaluated with a mean follow-up of 5 years with radiographic controls and functional assessment with the Constant-Murley score.

resultsComplete healing was achieved in 18 of 19 patients. All patients presented a lower Constant-Murley score than the pre-fracture score, there were no significant differences between prosthetic implants, and the cortical index was lower than the threshold level in more than 60% of cases.

conclusionThe results of this study showed that a correct preoperative planning is essential to evaluate the type of implant and possible signs of stem mobilization. With a stable stem, it is preferable to maintain it and proceed to a synthesis. The decision process is more complex in periprosthetic fractures with a reduced cortical index, when some radiolucency lines are present in stems with high primary stability, because it is not always indicative of an unstable stem. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic III.

Indexed as

periprosthetic humeral fracturepost-operative periprosthetic fractureshoulder arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID34595045
PMCPMC8477678
OpenAlexW3204781593

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.