ReviewJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews2024
Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures-Beyond B2.
Review in Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Maximizing stem body size may reduce the risk of postoperative periprosthetic fractures : an analysis of 2,757 CPT femoral components.Bone & joint open · 2026Article
- Cement-in-cement revision for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures: indications, surgical principles, and clinical outcomes - a narrative review.Journal of orthopaedics · 2026Review
- Fractures of the Femur After Hip Joint Replacement: The Vancouver Classification After 30 Years.The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume · 2026Article
- Introducing the Universal Periprosthetic Femur Fracture (UPFF) Classification: All Fractures Femur.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- [Treatment of proximal periprosthetic femoral fractures : Options for revision arthroplasty].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
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
The proliferation of hip arthroplasty has seen concomitant increases in periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs). The most common pattern involves fracture at the level of a loose prosthesis (B2). B2 PFFs have a unique mechanopathogenesis linked to the tendency of polished taper-slip cemented stems to subside in the cement. Such stems carry a much higher PFF risk than other cemented designs. Mega-data, consistent across national registries, suggest that increasing application of the taper-slip principle has resulted in the emergence of highly polished, very low friction cemented prostheses. These have the propensity to migrate within the cement, increasing B2 PFF risk. This would explain the strong association between cobalt-chromium stems and PFF. Is PFF the mode of failure of polished taper-slip stems rather than aseptic loosening? Established wisdom teaches that B2 PFFs should be managed with revision surgery. There is a large body of new evidence that, in certain instances, fixation results in outcomes at least equivalent to revision arthroplasty, with shorter surgical time, decreased transfusion requirements, and lower dislocation risk. This is so in B2 PFFs around cemented polished taper-slip stems with an intact bone-cement interface. We outline advances in understanding of B2 PFF with special reference to mechanopathogenesis and indications for fixation.
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.