ReviewUnfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)2022
[Distal femoral fractures].
Review in Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany), 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determination of the ideal plate for medial femoral condyle fracture fixation: an anatomical fit and biomechanical study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Biomechanical analysis of bridge combined fixation system as a novel treatment for the fixation of type A3 distal femoral fractures.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
clinical issueFractures of the distal femur represent rare but serious injuries with a high 1‑year mortality. An increasingly older patient population requires adapted treatment concepts. STANDARD TREATMENT PROCEDURE: Surgical treatment using angular stable plating and retrograde nailing is the standard procedure. Conservative treatment is only indicated in cases of low demands and high perioperative risks of the patient. TREATMENT INNOVATIONS: Primary double plate osteosynthesis and primary implantation of a distal femoral replacement represent new treatment procedures and show promising initial results in the collective of geriatric patients. DIAGNOSTIC WORK-UP: Conventional radiographs in 2 planes and computed tomography with multiplanar and 3D reconstructions should be performed to enable an adequate assessment of the indications and treatment planning. PERFORMANCE: Nonunion rates of plate and nail osteosyntheses range from 4% to 10%. No significant differences in long-term results can be observed. The results regarding double plate osteosynthesis and distal femoral replacement so far do not show any disadvantages compared to the existing procedures but there is still insufficient data for general recommendations. ASSESSMENT: Complex fractures with extensive reconstructive procedures and treatment by distal femoral replacement should be performed in specialized centers. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: The gold standard is still surgical treatment by means of minimally invasive angular stable plate or retrograde nail osteosynthesis. Complex fracture forms require individual treatment planning considering all currently available treatment options.
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.