ArticleEFORT open reviews2026
Periprosthetic fractures of the knee.
Article in EFORT open reviews, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Periprosthetic fractures around total knee arthroplasty are an increasingly common and complex problem driven by rising arthroplasty volumes, aging populations, and longer implant survivorship. Successful management requires integration of trauma principles with arthroplasty-specific considerations, particularly implant stability, bone stock, and patient frailty. Implant stability and bone quality are the primary determinants of treatment strategy, outweighing fracture morphology alone. Classification systems are useful frameworks but must be interpreted in the context of component fixation and host factors. Fixation using locked plating, retrograde intramedullary nailing, or combined constructs is appropriate for stable implants with adequate bone stock and achieves high union rates, while preserving bone and future revision options, particularly important in younger or active patients. Revision arthroplasty with stemmed components, cones or sleeves, and appropriate constraint is indicated for loose components or compromised bone stock, offering durable reconstruction but with complication profiles similar to complex revision total knee arthroplasty. Distal femoral replacement serves as an effective salvage option for fractures that cannot be fixed or in frail, low-demand patients, enabling immediate weight-bearing but at the cost of higher complication and re-revision rates. Overall, outcomes depend not only on fracture union but also on restoration of alignment, extensor mechanism function, and early mobilization. High complication rates reflect the combined burden of fragility fracture biology and revision arthroplasty complexity, underscoring the need for individualized, patient-centered decision-making.
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.