ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2026
Challenging the myth: comparing early complications of native and periprosthetic distal femur fractures. The role of implant stability.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2026. 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.
- Comparison of nail-plate and double-plate fixation in primary and periprosthetic distal femur fractures in older adults.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPeriprosthetic distal femur fractures are often considered more complex and morbid than native distal femur fractures, yet few studies directly compare them. This study aimed to compare patient characteristics, treatment strategies, and early complications between native and periprosthetic distal femur fractures using the Lewis-Rorabeck classification.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 152 patients treated surgically for distal femur fractures at a level I trauma center. Cases included native fractures (n = 90) and periprosthetic distal femur fractures (n = 62), further divided into Lewis-Rorabeck Type I/II (n = 49) and Type III (n = 13). Demographics, comorbidities, surgical details, and in-hospital complications were assessed. We conducted a multivariate analysis comparing native fractures with Lewis-Rorabeck Type I/II fractures, as well as comparing Type I/II with Type III fractures.
resultsPatients with periprosthetic fractures were older and had higher BMI than those with native fractures (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed no significant differences in surgery duration, mortality, mobility at discharge, transfusion needs, or revision rates between native distal femur fractures (AO/OTA Type A) and Lewis-Rorabeck Type I/II. The complication rate was significantly lower in the periprosthetic group (p = 0.029). Lewis-Rorabeck Type III fractures showed significantly longer time to surgery (p = 0.015) and revision surgery was performed more frequently compared to Lewis-Rorabeck Type I/II fractures. However, no differences were observed in early postoperative complications, mobility at discharge, or length of hospital stay.
conclusionThis study directly compares periprosthetic distal femur fractures stratified by implant stability to native distal femur fractures. The findings challenge the perception that periprosthetic fractures are universally more difficult to treat. Periprosthetic fractures achieve results comparable to native fractures. The increased complexity of Lewis-Rorabeck Type III fractures is reflected in prolonged time to surgery and an increased need for revision surgery.
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.