ArticleThe Iowa orthopaedic journal2026
Femoral Shaft Fragility Fractures: Peri-Implant Fracture Risk Mitigated by Femoral Neck Protection.
Article in The Iowa orthopaedic journal, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite their association with high morbidity and mortality rates, limited data is available regarding subsequent fracture after femoral shaft fragility fractures. Specifically, two clinically important questions remain unanswered: (1) What is the cumulative incidence of proximal peri-implant femur fractures following femoral shaft fragility fractures? (2) Is fixation protecting the proximal femur associated with a lower cumulative incidence of proximal peri-implant femur fracture compared to when the proximal femur is not protected? Methods: A multi-center retrospective cohort study was conducted at four level 1 trauma centers. Patients aged 50 years or older treated with reduction and fixation of a low energy femoral shaft fracture between 2005 to 2024 were included in this review.Cases were categorized by whether fixation protected the proximal femur. Descriptive statistics were reported, and Kaplan Meier survival analyses assessed associations of patient, injury and treatment characteristics with the main outcome of cumulative incidence of proximal peri-implant fracture. Statistical significance was considered for p < 0.05. Results: There were 245 patients with a median age of 75 years old and interquartile range (IQR) 65 to 83, 192 (78.4%) women, and median Charlson Comorbidity Index 4 (IQR 3 to 6). Assessment via the AO/OTA classification revealed 193 32A, 34 32B, and 18 32C fractures. The overall rate of subsequent proximal femur fracture was less with fixation that protected the proximal femur (0/119, 0%) than without (6/126, 4.8%), p = 0.030. Without fixation protecting the proximal femur, the cumulative incidence of proximal femur fracture climbed to 6.9% within 10 months of femoral shaft fracture and was significantly greater than a sustained 0% incidence when fixation protected the proximal femur, log-rank p = 0.015. Proximal femur fracture was not associated with age, sex, comorbidity burden or AO/OTA classification (p > 0.05 for all). Conclusion: Without fixation protecting the proximal femur, approximately 1 in 15 patients treated for a femoral shaft fracture sustained a proximal femur fracture within 10 months of fixation of their shaft fracture. Protecting the proximal femur reduces the cumulative incidence of proximal peri-implant femur fracture and should be considered when possible. Level of Evidence: III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42488316PMC13389484What 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.