ArticleArthroplasty today2024
Who Is Treating Periprosthetic Femur Fractures? An Analysis of the Periprosthetic Research Consortium.
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.
- Internal fixation versus revision arthroplasty for Vancouver B2-B3 fractures: mortality and functional outcomes in frail patients. Insights from the PIPPAS study of 485 patients.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2025Observational
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Periprosthetic femur fractures (PPFFs) following total hip arthroplasty (THA) have increased in the past decade as the demand for primary surgery continues to grow. Although there is now more evidence to describe the treatment of Vancouver B fractures, there is still limited knowledge regarding factors that cause surgeons to perform either an open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or revision THA (rTHA). The purpose of this study was to determine what type of surgeons treat Vancouver B PPFFs at 11 major academic institutions and if there are trends in treatment decision-making regarding the use of ORIF or rTHA based on surgical training or patient factors. Methods: This multicenter retrospective study evaluated patients surgically treated for Vancouver B PPFF after THA between 2014 and 2019. Patients from 11 academic centers located in the United States were included in this study. Surgical outcomes and patient demographics were evaluated based on surgeon training, surgical treatment type, and institution. Results: Presence of Vancouver B2 (odds ratio [OR]: 0.02, Conclusions: This study showed the trends in surgeons who surgically manage Vancouver B fractures at 11 major academic institutions and highlighted that regardless of surgical training or surgical treatment type, postoperative outcomes following management of PPFF were similar.
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.