ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Does an additional attachment plate improve fixation in Vancouver type B1 and C periprosthetic femoral fractures? A retrospective comparative study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThis study compared the clinical and radiologic outcomes of well-fixed periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip arthroplasty according to the use of single plate fixation with additional attachment plate device (group 1) or not (group 2). MATERIALS AND
methodsRetrospective data were obtained from a single center by reviewing medical records of patients who underwent reduction and internal fixation of Vancouver type B1 and C periprosthetic femoral fractures between June 2006 and June 2021. The study analyzed patient demographics, fracture characteristics, surgical details, functional outcomes (Harris hip score [HHS] and Koval score at 1-year follow-up), reoperation rates, and radiologic findings. In this study, nonunion and malunion were defined as indicators of "healing problems."
resultsAmong the 32 included patients (group 1: 15; group 2: 17), fractures resulted from high-energy (six cases) and low-energy (26 cases) injuries, with no open fractures. The fractures included 21 cases of Vancouver type B1 and 11 cases of type C. One patient (6.7%) in group 1 required revision surgery. Excellent or good outcomes were observed in 100% of group 1 and 88.2% of group 2 patients according to Beals-Tower criteria (p = 0.031). Healing problems occurred in 6.7% and 41.2% of patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.03). HHS score, Koval score, union time, or femoral alignment did not differ significantly between the two groups (p > 0.05).
conclusionsUsing an additional plate in the treatment of well-fixed periprosthetic femoral fractures yielded better clinical outcomes compared to cases without an additional plate. Lower rates of nonunion or delayed union and improved overall healing were observed in the augmented group.
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.