Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35774922›Full record

ArticleOrthopedic reviews2022

Periprosthetic knee fractures in an elderly population: open reduction and internal fixation vs distal femur megaprostheses.

Davide De Marco, Federica Messina, Cesare Meschini, Maria Serena Oliva, Giuseppe Rovere, Giuseppe Maccagnano, Giovanni Noia, Giulio Maccauro, Antonio Ziranu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopedic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Management of Bone Loss in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: An International Consensus Symposium.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2024
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Davide De MarcoDepartment of Orthopaedics, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Roma.ORCID 0000-0003-3233-100X
Federica MessinaDepartment of Orthopaedics, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Roma.
Cesare MeschiniDepartment of Orthopaedics, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Roma.
Maria Serena OlivaDepartment of Orthopaedics, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Roma.ORCID 0000-0001-9555-4943
Giuseppe RovereDepartment of Orthopaedics, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Roma.ORCID 0000-0001-7375-1479
Giuseppe MaccagnanoOrthopaedic and Trauma Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Foggia, Policlinico Riuniti di Foggia.ORCID 0000-0002-8596-2422
Giovanni NoiaOrthopaedic and Trauma Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Foggia, Policlinico Riuniti di Foggia.ORCID 0000-0001-9237-9043
Giulio MaccauroDepartment of Orthopaedics, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Roma.ORCID 0000-0002-7359-268X
Antonio ZiranuDepartment of Orthopaedics, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Roma.ORCID 0000-0002-6789-7495
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · ITOspedali Riuniti di Foggia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The incidence of periprosthetic fractures of distal femur (PPDFFx) after primary total knee arthroplasties is described around 0.3% and 2.5% and it is increasing as the number of patients with total knee arthroplasty continues to arise. surgical options treatments for PPDFFx include fixation in the form of eather Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), or retrograde intramedullary nailing (RIMN), or conventional (non locked) plating, or locked plating such as the Less Invasive Stabilization System (LISS), or dynamic condylar screws. In recent years, however, the use of megaprostheses has been increasing. Patients with periprosthetic fractures of distal femur after primary total knee arthroplasties treated with ORIF or with the use of Distal femur replacement (DFR) were retrospectively analyzed in this to evaluate differences in intra-operative blood loss, need of blood trasfusion, weight bearing, range of motion, rate of complications, rate of revision surgery and functional outcome according Oxford Knee Score between two groups. Treatment of Periprosthetic distal femur fracture remains controversial. While ORIF seems to guarantee less percentage of complications and reoperation rate, those treated with megaprosthesis seem to gain better range of motion in a very short post-operative time. In the future it will be necessary to investigate with greater numbers possible advantages and disadvantages of the various treatments in periprosthetic distal femur fractures.

Indexed as

kneemegaprosthesisORIFperiprosthetic

Identifiers

PMID35774922
PMCPMC9239368
OpenAlexW4229035350

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.