ArticleOTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma2025
Peri-implant and subsequent proximal femur fractures above distally based supracondylar femoral fixation constructs.
Article in OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma, 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
Objectives: To determine rates of peri-implant and subsequent proximal femur fractures in distally based constructs used to treat supracondylar distal femur fractures. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Level I Trauma Center, Midwestern United States. Patients/participants: The institutional electronic medical record was used to identify patients with displaced supracondylar femur fractures that were surgically treated with distally based fixation. Exclusion criteria included less than 6 months of follow-up, antegrade fixation, preexisting implants in the proximal femur, and instances where arthroplasty was performed as the initial treatment. Intervention: Distal femoral plate and/or retrograde intramedullary nail. Main outcome measurements: Rates of peri-implant and subsequent proximal fractures above distally based fixation of supracondylar femur fractures; any additional complications related to prophylactic proximal femoral fixation. Results: Ninety-four patients were identified who had supracondylar femur fractures treated with distally based constructs; 65 were treated with plating, 25 with retrograde nails, and 4 with a nail-plate combination. After the index distal femoral fracture fixation, 3 patients (3.2%) sustained peri-implant fractures and 5 others (5.3%) had proximal femoral fractures, so that the combined fracture rate adjacent to or above the distally based implants was 8.5%. Prophylactic fixation of the proximal femur above the retrograde implant was performed in 10 patients. Excluding these 10 patients, the subsequent combined peri-implant/proximal femoral fracture rate was 9.5% (8/84). This rate rose to 14.5% in patients over age 60 without prophylactic fixation. There were no complications including subsequent fracture associated with prophylactic fixation of the proximal femur. Conclusions: In patients over 60 years of age, the combined incidence of peri-implant and subsequent proximal fracture associated with distally based fixation of supracondylar femur fractures was 14.5% in this series. There were no associated complications with prophylactic fixation. Level of evidence: Level III.
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.