ArticleJournal of orthopaedics
Surgical outcomes of periprosthetic distal femur fractures after total knee arthroplasty classified by Su et al. system.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Periprosthetic Fractures After Total Knee Arthroplasty-A Two-Center Study and Systematic Review of the Literature.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Pooled it
- Outcomes of locked plating and retrograde intramedullary nailing for periprosthetic distal femur fractures after TKA.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Article
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
Background: Periprosthetic fractures of the distal femur remain a challenge to treat due to variations in both patient- and fracture-specific factors. This study was designed to analyze the outcomes of different subtypes of periprosthetic distal femur fractures based on the Su et al. classification system. Methods: Thirty-six patients were classified with Su et al. system. All Type I and II fractures were managed with a locking plate. Most Type III fractures were managed with locking plate, while two were managed with long-stem revision arthroplasty due to evidence of implant loosening. Outcomes were measured and analyzed based on healing time, revision rate, and complication rate. Results: Of the 36 patients, 30 (83.3%) achieved acceptable fracture union, while the remaining 6 (16.7%) experienced either delayed union or non-union. Type I fractures showed a significantly lower healing time than Type II and III fractures managed by locking plate. Delayed union was present in the Type II group, while non-union was recorded for two Type III fractures. Need for revision was more prevalent in fracture Types II and III. Conclusion: The Su et al. system of classification for periprosthetic fractures of the distal femur matches the clinical outcomes of this study and would seem to be useful in the approach to the treatment of these fractures. The majority of these fractures can be managed with locking plate with reasonable results. However, if the implant is loosened in Type III fractures, revision arthroplasty is suggested.
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.