ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025
Revision knee arthroplasty with distal femoral replacement : single center study.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 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
introductionDistal femoral replacement (DFR) revision surgery represents significant cost to the healthcare systems as well as significant patient morbidity/mortality. A retrospective review of revision knee surgery with DFR would elucidate a treatment algorithm for patients with complex reconstructive issues. In this study, we review patients' health metrics to better understand indications and potential complications for DFR revision. The data can then provide insight to specific patient factors that may put patients at higher risk for revision surgery.
methodsSeventy-one patients who underwent distal femoral replacement were gathered retrospectively using ICD-9/ICD-10 codes. Patient population was grouped based on periprosthetic fracture (PPF), aseptic loosening (ASL), and periprosthetic infection (PJI). Significant descriptors and metrics were gathered for each of these patient groups. Post-operative complications, revisions, and reoperations were then gathered for the three groups.
resultsPJI group had the highest percentage of complications at 54%. PPF had the lowest percentage of complications at 25%. The variables that contributed to the largest percentage of complications in all three groups were prosthetic joint infection and aseptic loosening. The PJI group had the largest number of reoperations at 54% and revisions at 31%. The average number of reoperations in the PPF was 1.25, while the average number of reoperations in the PJI and ASL group was three.
conclusionsIn summary, high rates of complications, particularly in the PJI group are concerning; the stabilization of survivorship beyond three years offers a degree of reassurance for both surgeons and patients. The ASL indication group presented the slowest onset time for both complications and revisions. The PJI Indication group was the quickest to onset for both complications and revisions making these patients a high-risk treatment group. Finally, this study showed that revisions with DFR serves as a viable surgical option for patients, especially patients suffering from periprosthetic fractures.
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.