ReviewCureus2026
Comparative Outcomes of Distal Femoral Replacement Versus Operative Fixation for Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PDFFs) are challenging injuries that commonly affect elderly patients following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The commonly used surgical interventions are distal femoral replacement (DFR) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), although the best approach remains debatable. This study aimed to evaluate the different ORIF subtypes and compare DFR versus ORIF for the management of PDFFs. This study was conducted in strict accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). A comprehensive search was conducted across various databases up to October 2025. This study included only cohort studies comparing various surgical management approaches. Primary outcomes included functional scores (Knee Society Score (KSS)/Knee Society Function Score (KSFS)/Oxford Knee Score (OKS)), reoperation, and range of motion (ROM). Risk of bias and methodological quality were assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) tool. Fifteen retrospective comparative studies involving 1,417 patients were included. Pooled analysis demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in reoperation rates favoring DFR (OR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.42-0.97). One-year mortality showed a non-significant trend favoring DFR (OR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.45-1.09). Infection rates were slightly higher in the DFR group without statistical significance (OR = 1.39; 95% CI: 0.61-3.18). No significant differences were observed in perioperative and functional outcomes between the two interventions. DFR allowed earlier full weight-bearing and mobilization, whereas ORIF required protected weight-bearing protocols. Compared with ORIF in PDFFs, DFR was associated with a reduced risk of reoperation and earlier postoperative mobilization. Mortality and functional outcomes remained comparable between the two interventions. Treatment selection should be individualized, with ORIF appropriate for reconstructible fractures with stable implants and DFR reserved for patients in whom fixation is unlikely to succeed or protected weight-bearing is unrealistic; all findings should be interpreted cautiously given the retrospective evidence base.
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.