ArticleBone & joint open2025
Fixation versus revision arthroplasty for Unified Classification System type B periprosthetic fractures around cemented polished tapered femoral components : a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Bone & joint open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) around hip arthroplasty implants are increasingly common, often occurring in frail elderly patients. Polished taper-slip (PTS) cemented femoral components are commonly used and have been associated with increased PFF rates compared with other cemented femoral component types. In managing Unified Classification System (UCS) type B fractures around PTS stems, surgical treatment options include open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and revision arthroplasty (RA), but there is limited evidence comparing these. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken. Results from database searching were screened and data were extracted by two authors independently. Reoperation was the primary outcome measure, and the secondary outcome measures included mortality, blood transfusion requirements, and length of stay. Results: There were 4,640 unique results, and four comparative studies were included in the final analysis. These were published between 2015 to 2023, totalling 539 patients, with 339 treated with ORIF and 200 treated with RA. There was a signal for a clinically large, but not statistically significant, benefit of ORIF compared with RA in reoperation risk (risk ratio (RR) 0.444; 95% CI 0.162 to 1.218; p = 0.115), with an absolute risk reduction of 9.15%. There was also a non-significant signal for increased mortality in the ORIF group at both 90 days and one year. ORIF was associated with a significant decrease in blood transfusion requirements (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.482 to 0.876; p = 0.005), with an absolute risk reduction of 14.07%. There was also a significant decrease in length of stay following ORIF (mean reduction 2.45 days; 95% CI 0.09 to 4.82; p = 0.042). Conclusion: Fixation alone is associated with significantly reduced length of stay and blood transfusion, and also with a trend towards reduced reoperation and increased mortality, which may reflect a frailer patient group that receive this treatment, but neither of these findings reached statistical significance. Fixation may have benefits when applied in suitable cases.
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.