ReviewEFORT open reviews2022
Treatment algorithm in Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures: osteosynthesis vs revision arthroplasty.
Review in EFORT open reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- 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
- Review
- Internal fixation versus revision arthroplasty for Vancouver B2-B3 fractures: mortality and functional outcomes in frail patients. Insights from the PIPPAS study of 485 patients.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2025Observational
- A Case Report of a Symptomatic Atrophy and Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Diaphysis Induced by Internal Plate Fixation of a Periprosthetic Fracture.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Cementless long-stem fixation in periprosthetic clamshell fracture: a biomechanical investigation.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Is a Feasible Alternative to Femoral Revision Arthroplasty in Geriatric Patients with Vancouver B2/3 Type Periprosthetic Fractures: A Study Analyzing In-Hospital Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- 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
- Cemented vs cementless stems for revision arthroplasties due to Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fracture.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024Article
- Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures treatment: fix or replace? A retrospective study comparing both techniques.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 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
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is currently a debate on whether all Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures should be revised. The aim of our work was to establish a decision-making algorithm that helps to decide whether open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or revision arthroplasty (RA) should be performed in these patients. Relative indications in favour of ORIF are low-medium functional demand (Parker mobility score (PMS) <5), high anaesthetic risk (American Society of Anesthesiologists score (ASA) ≥ 3), many comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) ≥ 5), 1 zone fractured (VB2.1), anatomical reconstruction possible, and no prior loosening (hip pain). Relative indications in favour of RA are high functional demand (PMS ≥6), low anaesthetic risk (ASA< 3), few comorbidities (CCI<5), fracture ≥ 2 zones (VB2.2), comminuted fractures, and prior loosening (hip pain). In cemented stems, those fractures with fully intact cement-bone interface, no stem subsidence into the cementraliser, cement mantle anatomically reducible, and some partial stem-cement attachment can be safely treated with ORIF.
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.