ReviewOrthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany)2024
[High revision rates and mortality after treatment of periprosthetic distal femur fractures with a distal femur replacement : An analysis from the EPRD].
Review in Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Bone Health Optimization Framework for Malaysia: a position paper by the Malaysian Bone Health Optimization Network (MyBONe).Archives of osteoporosis · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeriprosthetic distal femoral fractures (PDFF) are challenging injuries, as mostly geriatric patients with serious comorbidities are affected. Revision to a distal femoral replacement (DFR) is often the best option in very distal fractures, poor bone stock and/or loose total knee replacement. Data on outcome after these surgeries is limited.
objectivesThis study was initiated to analyze the outcome after distal femoral replacement for periprosthetic distal femoral fractures. MATERIALS AND
methodsData of the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD) were analyzed. From a total of 43,945 revision knee replacement surgeries in the registry, 629 patients could be identified with a PDFF in which a DFR was used for revision. The mean age was 79.1 years, and 84.1% were female. Revisions and mortality were analyzed and compared with patient groups with a similar procedure (revision total knee arthroplasty) or similar general condition (fracture hip replacement). To make the groups more comparable, matched-pair-analyses were performed that included age, gender, BMI and comorbidities as matching parameters.
resultsWithin 1 year after surgery 17.1% of the patients died and 10.4% were revised. Within 4 years 35.5% died and 22.3% were revised. Revision rates were lower in elective knee revisions (1 year 6.0%, 4 years 16.8%). Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) accounted for 50% of all revisions, resulting a PJI rate of 7.3%. Mortality after DFR was similarly high as after fracture hip arthroplasty.
conclusionAfter DFR for PDFF every third patient died, and every fifth patient needed revision within 4 years after surgery, which demonstrates the severity of this injury. Efforts should be undertaken to provide optimal treatment to these high-risk patients to reduce unfavorable outcomes. Surgeries should be well prepared and performed as early as possible in hospitals with adequate experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38193921What 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.