ArticleCureus2025
Periprosthetic Femur Fractures Managed by Revision Arthroplasty.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Treatment of proximal periprosthetic femoral fractures : Options for revision arthroplasty].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) are a growing indication for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), particularly in elderly patients with complex comorbidities. Surgical management is challenging, with significant morbidity and mortality. This study evaluates outcomes following revision arthroplasty for PFFs at a tertiary trauma centre in the United Kingdom . Methods A retrospective review was conducted of 24 patients who underwent revision arthroplasty for PFFs between February 2021 and January 2022. Data collected included patient demographics, fracture classification, implant history, surgical details, and complications. Follow-up data were extracted from electronic health records up to February 2025. The primary outcome was the need for further revision; secondary outcomes included mortality and postoperative complications. Results The cohort had a mean age of 78.3 years (IQR: 16), with most injuries resulting from low-energy trauma. Vancouver B-type fractures were the most common, and three patients sustained interprosthetic fractures. Surgical strategies included modular fluted stems (n=13), femoral replacement prostheses (n=7), and cemented stems (n=4). Complications included one infection managed with suppressive antibiotics, two recurrent dislocations, and two cases of leg length discrepancy. One patient required further revision for instability. Twelve patients died during follow-up: two within 30 days, three within one year, and seven after one year. Thirteen patients were followed remotely due to frailty or relocation. Conclusion Revision arthroplasty for PFFs involves technically demanding procedures with significant risks. Despite the complexity, outcomes were in line with published data. Multidisciplinary care, timely surgical intervention, and individualised implant selection remain critical to optimise outcomes in this high-risk population.
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.