ArticleMusculoskeletal surgery2024
Interimplant femoral fracture: analysis of risk factors.
Article in Musculoskeletal surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interimplant fractures present a significant challenge for orthopedic surgeons. Despite a noticeable rise in these cases in recent years, our understanding of this specific fracture type remains limited. This study aims to analyze and identify the primary risk factors associated with interimplant femoral fractures. We conducted a retrospective analysis involving 20 patients with interimplant femoral fracture (case group) and 18 patients who had both proximal and distal femoral implants but did not experience interimplant fractures (control group). Our analysis focused on demographic factors (age, sex, BMI) and radiographic parameters (implant types, gap between implants, cortical thickness, femoral canal area) to identify potential risk factors. In the case group, all patients were females, whereas in the control group, 16 patients were female and 2 were males. The mean age in the case group was 88 [Formula: see text] 9 years and in the control group was 87 [Formula: see text] 12 years. None of the demographic differences reached statistical significance. The mean cortical thickness in the case group was 6 [Formula: see text] 2.25 mm, whereas in the control group, it was 9 [Formula: see text] 1.75 mm (p-value < 0.001). The median gap between the proximal and distal tips of the implants measured 194 [Formula: see text] 126 mm in the case group and 66 [Formula: see text] 78 mm in the control group (p-value < 0.001). Additionally, the mean femoral canal area was 284 [Formula: see text] 102 mm
Indexed as
Identifiers
38214868What 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.