ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2026
Managing Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures: is open reduction and internal fixation superior to stem revision? : A comparative analysis with a minimum 5-year follow-up.
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. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of stem revision (SR) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for the treatment of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures of the femur.
methodsFrom June 2013 to May 2023, 56 consecutive patients were studied at our institution. Four patients were lost to follow-up, four had incomplete data. Thus, 48 cases were included in the analysis. The patients were divided into a stem revision group (SR group with 25 patients) and an open reduction and internal fixation group (ORIF group with 23 patients). The surgical complications, perioperative parameters, and 1-year mortality rates were assessed, the functional outcomes were assessed with the Harris Hip Score (HHS), and the radiographic outcomes were assessed in accordance with the Beals and Tower criteria.
resultsIn SR group, the mean follow-up time was 61.2 months, 36% of patients experienced complications, the mean HHS was 75.27, and 92% of the patients had “excellent–good” radiographic outcomes. In ORIF group, the mean follow-up time was 63.7 months, 21.7% of patients experienced complications, the mean HHS was 73.56, and 91.3% of the patients had “excellent–good” radiographic outcomes. The total number of postoperative complications, dislocation rate, blood loss volume, operation time and transfusion rate were lower in ORIF group, and two patients in SR group experienced hip dislocation. There were no significant differences in the 1-year mortality rate, bone healing time and reoperation rate between the two groups. However, while the fracture pattern was considerd, the one zone fracture demonstrated lower radiographic subsidence comparing with two zones fracture (1.18 ± 1.36 mm vs 1.87 ± 1.61 mm). Most of these patients in both groups did not return to their preoperative mobility status.
conclusionsAlthough SR is the golden standard for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures of the femur, ORIF can be a viable alternative for frail and low-demand patients on account of signifcantly less perioperative blood loss, shorter operating time and lower medical or total complication rates; expecially for the isolated medial or lateral zone fracture with primary long stem and “happy hips”.
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.