ArticleArthroplasty today2024
Early Postoperative Functional Recovery in Older Patients With Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: Comparison Between Cemented and Cementless Stem Revisions.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2024. 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.
- Revision arthroplasty versus open reduction and internal fixation in Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures: results from a matched pairs analysis of the registry for geriatric trauma of the DGUArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
- Usefulness of non-surgical treatment without weight bearing restriction versus surgical treatment for maintaining activities of daily living in patients with peri-prosthetic femoral fractures.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
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: Early postoperative functional recovery is important in older patients with lower-extremity fractures to prevent disuse, and periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) are no exception. This study aimed to compare the postoperative functional recovery in the early phase after revision for PFF with loose stems between cemented and cementless stems. Methods: Eighteen patients with Unified Classification System type B2 PFF were included in this retrospective cohort study with a follow-up period of about 2 years. All patients underwent stem revision and were divided into 2 groups: the cemented stem group (n = 9) and the cementless stem group (n = 9). In postrevision, functional independence measure score, independent walk rate, activities of daily living recovery rate to the original level at 2 weeks postoperatively, the Beals and Tower classification for radiological status, and survival rate for readmission as endpoints were compared between the 2 groups. Results: Patients in the cemented group recovered functional mobility earlier than in the cementless group, with higher postoperative functional independence measure functional subscale values (73 vs 50 points, Conclusions: Revision using a cemented stem for PFF in older patients was a useful surgical procedure in terms of early postoperative functional recovery. Cemented stem revision was comparable with cementless in bone union and safety at 2 years postoperatively.
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.