ArticleSICOT-J2025
Proximal femoral replacement with locking plate for massive bone loss: a case report.
Article in SICOT-J, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Complications on the femoral side after performing proximal femoral replacement (PFR), such as stem loosening and periprosthetic fractures, are the major reasons for reoperation. Femoral reconstruction was performed using PFR with a locking plate to minimize the risk of complications. We present the case of an 85-year-old woman with stem loosening and massive proximal femoral bone loss (Paprosky type IV) 10 years after stem revision in bipolar hemiarthroplasty. Femoral reconstruction was performed using the following surgical techniques. After removing the previous implant, a PFR was inserted into the host bone of the distal femur and fixed at the junction with cement. In addition, a locking plate was used for bridging. Full weight-bearing rehabilitation was started the day after surgery. At the 5-year follow-up, the patient could walk steadily without complications. A postoperative radiograph of the femur showed no signs of a radiolucent line, implant-related issues, or bone resorption. This reconstructive technique may reduce the high torsional and compressive stresses on bone cement prostheses, which can cause complications on the femoral side. Even in the case of poor femoral host bone quality, this reconstruction method can achieve robust femoral reconstruction. Femorl reconstruction using PFR with a locking plate is a particularly beneficial reconstruction method for older patients with massive proximal femoral bone loss.
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.