ArticleGeriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation2022
Current Practice of Italian Association of Revision Surgery Members in the Treatment of Unified Classification System Type B Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture Around Hip Arthroplasty: A Cross-Sectional Survey.
Article in Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The History of Classification Systems for Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: A Literature Review.Orthopaedic surgery · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Periprosthetic femoral fracture around hip arthroplasty are growing in the world, nevertheless management and treatment options for fractures "around the stem" are still debated due to lack of high-level studies. Materials and method: A 85-item survey were fill out by 40 Italian Orthopedic Surgeon member of SIOT (Società Italiana di Ortopedia e Traumatologia) and AIR (Associazione Italiana Riprotesizzazione) to assess their current opinion in the management of type B periprosthetic femoral fractures. Responses were summarized using proportions, and further stratified by practice type, case volume, surgeon age, and fellowship training. Results: Vancouver/UCS fracture classification showed a good interobserver agreement (k value = .76). ORIF were the treatment of choice for UCS type B1 fractures (100%), revision stem for B2 (85%) and B3 (100%). Locked plates were preferred to cable plate and cerclage without a plate for B1 fractures (50% vs 40% vs 10%); revision with modular stem was preferred to monoblock stem for B2 fractures (50% vs 35%) and B3 (75% vs 15%). Responders tended to postpone at 1-month weight-bearing in patients with B1 fractures. Regarding postoperative pharmacological treatment there was absolute lack of consensus. Discussion: The primary finding of our survey confirmed the preference of ORIF for B1 fractures and stem revision for B2 and B3 fractures. However, there is no definitive operative technique for all UCS B fractures. Surgeons tended to favor locked plating over cable plating, although only slightly. This general lack of consensus coincides with the inconclusive evidence that currently exists in the literature, which demonstrates both favorable and unfavorable outcomes for both techniques. Conclusions: The absence of complete homogeneity among participants showed the need for prospective randomized studies to set up stronger guidelines for classification, management, surgical treatment, rehabilitation, and pharmacological support of periprosthetic femoral fractures.
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.