ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2025
Risks for reoperation to promote union in periprosthetic distal femur fractures.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2025. 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.
- [Treatment concepts for of the distal femoral fractures-Management strategy of periprosthetic distal femoral fractures].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Outcomes of Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures by Fixation Construct: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026Article
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
purposeTo determine the risk factors for reoperation to promote union for periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PDFF).
methodsThis was a retrospective, multi-centered comparative study of patients with PDFF (AO 33A-C[VB1, C1, D1]) managed operatively with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with a lateral locked plate (LLP). Exclusion criteria were acute management with a distal femur replacement, fixation other than LLP, less than 6 months of follow-up, and lack of injury or follow-up radiographs. The primary outcome measure was reoperation to achieve bony union. Univariate and multivariate analyses were made between cases that did and did not require a reoperation to achieve union.
resultsA total of 52 patients met inclusion criteria, of which 7 (13.5%) required a reoperation for union. There were no differences between the groups for age, sex, body mass index, comorbidities, Su classification, or open injury. Multivariate analysis identified risks for reoperation to promote union including notching preoperatively (OR 1.26, CI 1.04-1.53, p = 0.007), increased number of screws through a fracture line (OR 1.27, CI 1.15-1.41, p < 0.001), plate length < 12 holes (OR 1.15, CI 1.00-1.33, p = 0.020), and lower number of proximal screws that were locking (OR 0.95, CI 0.9-1.0, p = 0.043). Conclusions The reoperation rate to promote union was 13.5%. While limited by total case number, this study identified notching preoperatively, presence of screws through the fracture line, plate length < 12 holes, and lower number of proximal screws that were locking to be independent risk factors for reoperation to promote union.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40483658What 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.