ReviewUnfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)2022
[Techniques and results of primary hip arthroplasty in geriatric acetabular 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acetabular fractures in geriatric patients: epidemiology, pathomechanism, classification and treatment options.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Review
- A review of acetabular fracture patterns, etiologies, and management in Jordan.Saudi medical journal · 2023Review
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As a result of demographic changes, there is an increase in geriatric acetabular fractures [1, 2]. Geriatric patients often have comorbidities, such as pre-existing coxarthritis, reduced bone quality or limited compliance, which makes injury-adapted follow-up treatment difficult [3]. As a result joint-preserving interventions often fail at an early stage, so that hip arthroplasty is necessary in the short term. The 1‑year mortality after surgically stabilized acetabular fractures is 8.1%, a significant increase by a factor of 4 compared to the age group [4]. This illustrates that differentiated criteria for the indication of joint-preserving surgery versus arthroplasty are necessary to avoid reoperations and complications. Criteria for the indications for primary arthroplasty are fracture type, pre-existing coxarthritis, poor bone quality, limited compliance and patient age (> 75 years) [5, 6].In the following article, three treatment strategies for geriatric acetabular fractures and periprosthetic acetabular fractures are presented; the 1‑stage prosthesis implantation without osteosynthesis, the 1‑stage prosthesis implantation with osteosynthesis and the 2‑stage approach with limited osteosynthesis and early total arthroplasty. The advantages and disadvantages of these options are presented based on cases and the various aspects of the treatment. The treatment of geriatric acetabular fractures is an operative challenge for the surgeon and requires a high level of expertise in both special trauma surgery and revision arthroplasty and thus represents a special interface in the fields of orthopedics and trauma surgery.
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.