SynthesisArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024
Stem revision vs. internal fixation in Vancouver B2/B3 periprosthetic hip fractures: systematic review and metanalysis.
Synthesis 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 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Vancouver B3 periprosthetic fractures of the femur: options for treatment.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Review
- Review
- [Treatment of proximal periprosthetic femoral fractures : Options for revision arthroplasty].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Impact of periprosthetic femoral fractures on frailty, mobility and outcomes in hip arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Cumulative Risk for Periprosthetic Fracture and Operative Treatment Options After Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with a Modular and Tapered Revision Device-A Consecutive Series of 117 Cases in a Mid-Term Duration.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- [Surgical treatment strategies for periprosthetic femoral fractures of type Vancouver B].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Open reduction and internal fixation offers lower hip-related complications compared to stem revision in Vancouver B2 fractures around cemented polished tapered femoral stems.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Is a Feasible Alternative to Femoral Revision Arthroplasty in Geriatric Patients with Vancouver B2/3 Type Periprosthetic Fractures: A Study Analyzing In-Hospital Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Clinical outcomes of revision arthroplasty with a modular taper fluted titanium stem for the treatment of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femur fractures.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgieArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionVancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures (PFF) are associated with stem instability and often require a demanding stem implant revision (SR) or internal fixation (ORIF). This latter surgery is increasingly performed in the last few years instead of SR, but it is unclear which is the best treatment to manage PFF patients. The aim of this study is the compare the outcomes of B2/B3 PFF managed by either ORIF or SR, by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature. MATERIALS AND
methodsCochrane Database, PubMed, Google Scholar and MEDLINE were examined to find out relevant publications dealing with the different outcomes of SR vs. ORIF in B2/B3 PFF of the hip. The effect model (EM) was calculated using Cohen´s d index.
resultsFifteen studies were included, reporting on a total of 1629 patients (564 ORIF and 1065 SR). The pooled random EM estimates for reoperation was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.39-1.96; I2 = 78%) in favor of ORIF surgery; EM for complications was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.45-2.27; I2 = 85%) without difference among procedures. The EM for transfusion was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.46-1.12; I2 = 62%) in favor of fixation.
conclusionORIF and SR were both suitable and effective options in PFF patients, being associated to similar complications rates. Our results show that ORIF performance in PFF patients is associated to significantly less in blood loss, surgical time and in-hospital stay. These advantages are particularly appealing in patients with multiple comorbidities.
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.