Systematic Review of the Treatment of Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To systematically review and compare nonoperative and operative treatments for the management of periprosthetic distal femur fractures adjacent to total knee arthroplasties. Specific operative interventions compared included locked plating, retrograde intramedullary nailing (RIMN), and conventional (nonlocked) plating. Where possible, data were pooled to arrive at summary estimates of treatment effect [odds ratios (ORs) with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs)]. METHODS: A comprehensive database search (via Pubmed, Medline, Cochrane Database, and the Orthopaedic Trauma Association database) was completed, yielding 44 eligible studies with a total of 719 fractures for analysis. Pertinent outcomes including malunion, nonunion, and the need for secondary surgical procedures were compared statistically. RESULTS: Both locked plating and RIMN demonstrated significant advantages over nonoperative treatment. Some advantages were also observed when locked plating and RIMN were compared with conventional (nonlocked) plates. Comparison of locked plating and RIMN showed no significant differences with regard to nonunion rates (OR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.13-1.15; P = 0.09) or rate of secondary surgical procedures (OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.31-1.35; P = 0.25). However, RIMN demonstrated a significantly higher malunion rate when compared with locked plating (OR = 2.37, 95% CI = 1.17-4.81; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Locked plating and RIMN offer significant advantages over nonoperative treatment and conventional (nonlocked) plating techniques in the management of periprosthetic femur fractures above total knee arthroplasties. Locked plating demonstrated a trend toward increased nonunion rates when compared with RIMN. Malunion was significantly higher with RIMN compared with locked plating.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".