ArticleOTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma2026
Open reduction and internal fixation versus distal femoral replacement for periprosthetic distal femur fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma, 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis compares open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus distal femoral replacement (DFR) for periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PDFF), focusing on patient-reported outcomes, perioperative measures, functional results, and complications. Data Sources: Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and ScienceDirect were searched from January 2010 through November 2024 using keywords and MeSH strategies. Study Selection: Studies were eligible if they compared outcomes of ORIF and DFR for PDFFs and included ≥10 patients. Exclusion criteria included noncomparative studies, primary arthroplasty indications, and nonperiprosthetic fractures. Data Extraction: Two independent reviewers extracted data on demographics, interventions, patient-reported outcomes, functional outcomes, and complications. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Discrepancies were resolved by a third author. Data Synthesis: Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate pooled incidence rates and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was assessed via I Conclusions: Knee Society Functional Scores were significantly better for ORIF vs DFR in the 2 studies reporting this metric (53 vs 39, 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.