ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024
Analysis of complications in 97 periprosthetic Vancouver B2 fractures treated either by internal fixation or revision arthroplasty.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of open reduction internal fixation versus revision arthroplasty around Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Pooled it
- Treatment and outcomes of periprosthetic femoral fractures in patients aged 90 years or older - a retrospective bicentre cohort study with 107 patients.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Article
- 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
- [Treatment of proximal periprosthetic femoral fractures : Options for revision arthroplasty].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Comparative study on the clinical efficacy of femoral neck system and cannulated cancellous screw in the treatment of femoral neck fractures in young patients.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Short-term outcomes of locking mini-fragment plate fixation for treatment of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femur fractures.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Article
- Which B2 Fractures Can Be Treated with ORIF? Validation of the "Beyond the Vancouver Classification".Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe treatment of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures after hip arthroplasty is still a matter of debate. Revision Arthroplasty (RA) was long thought to be the treatment of choice, however several recent papers suggested that Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF) is a viable option for selected B2 fractures. Complication rates of 14-26% have been reported following surgical treatment of B2 fractures. No significant difference between RA and ORIF in the complication rates nor in the functional outcome was observed.
methodWe conducted a retrospective analysis of 97 consecutive Vancouver B2 fractures treated according to the algorithm at our institution from 2007 to 2020 and recorded complications and patient specific data.
resultFrom the 97 patient, 45 fractures were treated with RA while 52 fractures were treated with ORIF. Thirteen patients in the RA group had a complication that needed revision (28%) and 11 patients in the ORIF group needed revision (21%). There was no significant difference between complication rates. The reason for failure in the 13 RA patients were infection (n = 4), stem subsidence (n = 1), refracture after a new fall (n = 3), secondary dislocation of the greater trochanter (n = 1) and dislocation (n = 4). The reason for failure in the 11 ORIF patients that were revised were infection (n = 5), persistent symptomatic stem loosening (n = 3) and refracture (n = 3) after a new fall.
conclusionORIF can be used to revise cemented and non-cemented shafts in more than half of Vancouver B2 fractures with no difference in complication rates when compared to RA. A periprosthetic fracture around the hip has a 21-28% risk of a re-operation after revision surgery with infection and re-fracture after a new fall being the most frequent cause of re-operation.
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.