Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40295337›Full record

Observational studyOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2025

Patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures are older adults who are commonly diagnosed with osteoporosis.

Victoria Houel, Gauthier Marchasson, Nassima Ramdane, Cécile Philippoteaux, Julien Paccou

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Victoria HouelDepartment of Rheumatology, CHU Lille, Univ. Lille, 59000, Lille, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-6737-1471
Gauthier MarchassonDepartment of Rheumatology, CHU Lille, Univ. Lille, 59000, Lille, France.
Nassima RamdaneDepartment of Biostatistics, CHU Lille, 59000, Lille, France.
Cécile PhilippoteauxDepartment of Rheumatology, CHU Lille, Univ. Lille, 59000, Lille, France.
Julien PaccouDepartment of Rheumatology, MABlab ULR 4490, CHU Lille, Univ. Lille, 59000, Lille, France. julien.paccou@chu-lille.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6599-8623

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study focused on individuals aged ≥ 50 years with periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF). When compared to those with native hip fractures, patients with PFF were older, had a higher BMI, and demonstrated a greater number of comorbidities. Given the high frequency of osteoporosis risk factors and the BMD results, PFF should be classified as osteoporotic fractures.

introductionTo compare patients presenting with periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) to patients with native hip fractures with a special focus on bone mineral density (BMD) measurements, in order to reinforce the hypothesis that PFF are osteoporotic fractures.

methodsA retrospective, single-centre, observational study of all patients aged ≥ 50 years with low-energy PFF identified at the Lille University Hospital from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2022, was conducted. The PFF group was compared to a group of patients with native hip fractures hospitalized during the same period. To compare the T-score data, we used a linear mixed model that considered a predefined adjustment for age, sex, and BMI. Adjusted means ± standard error of the mean (SEM) are derived from the mixed model.

resultsAmong 71 patients with PFF (78.9% female, median (IQR) age 81 (72-88) years), osteoarthritis (57.8%) was the primary indication for hip surgery. Compared with the native hip fracture group (n = 117), patients in the PFF group were significantly older (p = 0.002), had a significantly greater BMI (p = 0.043), and had a higher history of multiple falls (54.3% vs. 26.1%, p < 0.001). A greater frequency of previous low-energy fractures (69.0% vs. 44.0%, p < 0.001) and an increased prescription of anti-osteoporosis medications (26.8% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.006) in patients with PFF were found. Adjusted T-scores differed between the two groups at the lumbar spine (mean adjusted ± SEM, - 0.5 ± 0.2 (PFF group) vs. - 1.2 ± 0.2 (comparator group), p = 0.008) but not at the femoral neck or at the total hip.

conclusionLow-energy PFF should be considered as an osteoporotic fracture and treated accordingly.

Indexed as

Femoral FracturesOsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesPeriprosthetic FracturesAbsorptiometry, PhotonAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsArthroplasty, Replacement, HipBody Mass IndexBone DensityComorbidityFemaleHip FracturesHumansMaleBone mineral densityFracture liaison serviceOsteoporosisPeriprosthetic femoral fracturesPeriprosthetic fractures

Identifiers

PMID40295337
PMCPMC12122641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.