Reported outcomes for patients following postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures

Aims: Postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (POPFF) is an increasingly common and morbid complication of arthroplasty. This review aims to determine what outcomes are reported for POPFF and how they are measured, to inform the development of a core outcome set. Methods: Systematic searches of major databases and clinical trial registries (June 2014 to May 2024) identified studies reporting outcomes for more than five POPFF patients in English or Chinese. Multiple reviewers performed study screening and data extraction. Outcomes were extracted verbatim, collapsed into outcome domain subcategories, and categorized. Outcomes were synthesized descriptively, with subgroup exploration by implant (hip/knee) and economic setting. Results: A total of 564 studies, comprising 119,445 POPFF patients (mean age 75.0 years (38.5 to 90.0); median percentage of female patients 61.8%), were included. Across the studies, 2,711 individual reported outcomes were collapsed into 671 unique terms within 59 outcome domain subcategories. Outcome reporting was dominated by the physiological/clinical core area (38.7%), followed by life impact (29.3%), resource use (12.8%), adverse events (11.7%), and death (7.6%). The most frequently reported subcategories were bone union/healing, surgical complications, component/prosthesis outcomes, hip function, and mortality/survival. Only 46.4% of outcomes were accompanied by a clear definition or named outcome measurement instrument; for bone union, just 7.4% provided a clear definition, 44.9% were vague, and 47.7% provided none. Health-related quality of life was measured in 6.9% of studies (39 instances) using seven instruments, most commonly the 12/36-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire and EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire. Patterns varied between hip and knee POPFF and between high-income and low- to middle-income settings; one-year mortality was the most frequently reported survival timepoint. Conclusion: Outcome reporting after POPFF is heterogeneous, clinician-centred, and frequently undefined, with sparse use of patient-reported outcome measures and health-related quality of life instruments. These findings support the development of a POPFF core outcome set and recommended outcome measurement instruments to standardize reporting and promote patient-centred research.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Bone and Joint Research
Published
2026-10-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.1510.bjr-2025-0734
Primary Topic
Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Reported outcomes for patients following postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures

Wenjuan Cong, Wendy Bertram, Rebecca Fox, Hung‐Yuan Cheng et al.
Bone and Joint Research
Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
article

Reported outcomes for patients following postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures

Wenjuan Cong, Wendy Bertram, Rebecca Fox, Hung‐Yuan Cheng, Alexander L. Aquilina, Michael Richard Whitehouse, Jonathan Nicholas Lamb, Vikki Wylde, Jonathan Thomas Evans, Emily Howell, Tom Krause
article en

Abstract

Aims: Postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (POPFF) is an increasingly common and morbid complication of arthroplasty. This review aims to determine what outcomes are reported for POPFF and how they are measured, to inform the development of a core outcome set. Methods: Systematic searches of major databases and clinical trial registries (June 2014 to May 2024) identified studies reporting outcomes for more than five POPFF patients in English or Chinese. Multiple reviewers performed study screening and data extraction. Outcomes were extracted verbatim, collapsed into outcome domain subcategories, and categorized. Outcomes were synthesized descriptively, with subgroup exploration by implant (hip/knee) and economic setting. Results: A total of 564 studies, comprising 119,445 POPFF patients (mean age 75.0 years (38.5 to 90.0); median percentage of female patients 61.8%), were included. Across the studies, 2,711 individual reported outcomes were collapsed into 671 unique terms within 59 outcome domain subcategories. Outcome reporting was dominated by the physiological/clinical core area (38.7%), followed by life impact (29.3%), resource use (12.8%), adverse events (11.7%), and death (7.6%). The most frequently reported subcategories were bone union/healing, surgical complications, component/prosthesis outcomes, hip function, and mortality/survival. Only 46.4% of outcomes were accompanied by a clear definition or named outcome measurement instrument; for bone union, just 7.4% provided a clear definition, 44.9% were vague, and 47.7% provided none. Health-related quality of life was measured in 6.9% of studies (39 instances) using seven instruments, most commonly the 12/36-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire and EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire. Patterns varied between hip and knee POPFF and between high-income and low- to middle-income settings; one-year mortality was the most frequently reported survival timepoint. Conclusion: Outcome reporting after POPFF is heterogeneous, clinician-centred, and frequently undefined, with sparse use of patient-reported outcome measures and health-related quality of life instruments. These findings support the development of a POPFF core outcome set and recommended outcome measurement instruments to standardize reporting and promote patient-centred research.

Bone and Joint ResearchVol. 15(10)
University of Exeter (GB), Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust (GB), University of Bristol (GB), NIHR Exeter Clinical Research Facility (GB), Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Centre (GB), University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.