ArticlePloS one2026
Outcome of distal femoral replacement: Influence of trauma vs. elective indications - A prospective single-center study.
Article in PloS one, 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
backgroundDistal femoral replacement (DFR) is often the last leg-saving option in advanced femoral bone defects after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and periprosthetic distal femoral fractures. The aim of this study was to compare the midterm outcome of DFR following periprosthetic fracture or elective TKA revision.
methodsThis prospective cohort study included 93 DFR patients (49 trauma, 44 elective) from 2010 to 2021. DFR for revision in periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) or tumor resections were not included. Data on demographics, surgical history and reason of failure until DFR, revision rates, satisfaction and pain in mean 5 years postoperatively were collected. Revision incidence was estimated using cumulative incidence functions accounting for death as a competing event, while patient mortality was analysed using Kaplan-Meier estimation. Multivariate Cox regression models were used to assess which parameters were associated with DFR revision.
resultsTrauma patients had in mean 1.5 (SD 0.9) prior surgeries, while elective patients had 3.1 (SD 1.5), p < 0.001. Satisfaction was higher after trauma (6.9/10) compared to elective DFR (5.4/10). The 1- and 5-year cumulative incidence of revision was 4.1% and 13.9% in trauma patients and 7.0% and 42.0% in elective patients, respectively. The 1- and 5-years mortality rates were 18.7% and 47.5% (trauma) and 6.9% and 16.8% (elective). Female sex was associated with lower, previous constraint TKA, and elective indication were associated with higher revision risk.
conclusionThere were higher revision rates but lower mortality in elective DFR compared to trauma patients, mainly caused by pre-existing conditions. Surgeons should take this into consideration during shared decision making for DFR. REGISTRY AND THE REGISTRATION NUMBER OF THE STUDY: German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS). DRKS-ID: DRKS00036378.
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.