Femur Fracture

How it works

Risks & contraindications

Comparisons

Highlighted claims

• Eleven percent of patients in the cohort sustained femur fractures after OPRA surgery. — Non-infectious skeletal complications in the lower extremity after treatment with a transfemoral bone-anchored prosthesis: a retrospective observational study
• All fractures in the cohort were femur fractures and all occurred on the same side as the BAP fixture. — Non-infectious skeletal complications in the lower extremity after treatment with a transfemoral bone-anchored prosthesis: a retrospective observational study
• Most fracture mechanisms involved falls, consistent with increased fall risk known in lower-limb amputees. — Non-infectious skeletal complications in the lower extremity after treatment with a transfemoral bone-anchored prosthesis: a retrospective observational study
• Femur fracture fixation is surgically challenging in BAP patients because the implant may obstruct preferred osteosynthesis approaches. — Non-infectious skeletal complications in the lower extremity after treatment with a transfemoral bone-anchored prosthesis: a retrospective observational study
• The higher fracture rate in this OPRA cohort compared with other BAP studies may be partly explained by older patient age and much longer mean follow-up of 13.2 years. — Non-infectious skeletal complications in the lower extremity after treatment with a transfemoral bone-anchored prosthesis: a retrospective observational study
• The 11% femur fracture rate in this cohort exceeds the world's highest age-standardised hip fracture incidence recorded for Scandinavia (approximately 5–6%). — Non-infectious skeletal complications in the lower extremity after treatment with a transfemoral bone-anchored prosthesis: a retrospective observational study
• Ipsilateral femoral bone loss following amputation may increase susceptibility to fracture in BAP patients. — Non-infectious skeletal complications in the lower extremity after treatment with a transfemoral bone-anchored prosthesis: a retrospective observational study