{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,16]],"date-time":"2026-06-16T22:55:31Z","timestamp":1781650531534,"version":"3.54.5"},"reference-count":34,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,17]],"date-time":"2026-04-17T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1776384000000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,17]],"date-time":"2026-04-17T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1776384000000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Arch Orthop Trauma Surg"],"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Purpose<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of stem revision (SR) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for the treatment of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures of the femur.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>From June 2013 to May 2023, 56 consecutive patients were studied at our institution. Four patients were lost to follow-up, four had incomplete data. Thus, 48 cases were included in the analysis. The patients were divided into a stem revision group (SR group with 25 patients) and an open reduction and internal fixation group (ORIF group with 23 patients). The surgical complications, perioperative parameters, and 1-year mortality rates were assessed, the functional outcomes were assessed with the Harris Hip Score (HHS), and the radiographic outcomes were assessed in accordance with the Beals and Tower criteria.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>In SR group, the mean follow-up time was 61.2\u00a0months, 36% of patients experienced complications, the mean HHS was 75.27, and 92% of the patients had \u201cexcellent\u2013good\u201d radiographic outcomes. In ORIF group, the mean follow-up time was 63.7\u00a0months, 21.7% of patients experienced complications, the mean HHS was 73.56, and 91.3% of the patients had \u201cexcellent\u2013good\u201d radiographic outcomes. The total number of postoperative complications, dislocation rate, blood loss volume, operation time and transfusion rate were lower in ORIF group, and two patients in SR group experienced hip dislocation. There were no significant differences in the 1-year mortality rate, bone healing time and reoperation rate between the two groups. However, while the fracture pattern was considerd, the one zone fracture demonstrated lower radiographic subsidence comparing with two zones fracture (1.18\u2009\u00b1\u20091.36\u00a0mm vs 1.87\u2009\u00b1\u20091.61\u00a0mm). Most of these patients in both groups did not return to their preoperative mobility status.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Although SR is the golden standard for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures of the femur, ORIF can be a viable alternative for frail and low-demand patients on account of signifcantly less perioperative blood loss, shorter operating time and lower medical or total complication rates; expecially for the isolated medial or lateral zone fracture with primary long stem and \u201chappy hips\u201d.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1007\/s00402-026-06297-1","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,17]],"date-time":"2026-04-17T07:59:25Z","timestamp":1776412765000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Managing Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures: is open reduction and internal fixation superior to stem revision?"],"prefix":"10.1007","volume":"146","author":[{"given":"Tihui","family":"Wang","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Hongwei","family":"Xu","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Jinqing","family":"Wu","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Xu","family":"Wang","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,17]]},"reference":[{"key":"6297_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Abdel MP, Roth PV, Harmsen WS, Berry DJ (2016) What is the lifetime risk of revision for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty? A 40-year observational study of patients treated with the Charnley cemented total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 98-B:1436\u20131440. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1302\/0301-620X.98B11.BJJ-2016-0337.R1","DOI":"10.1302\/0301-620X.98B11.BJJ-2016-0337.R1"},{"key":"6297_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"96","DOI":"10.1302\/0301-620X.93B1.25087","volume":"93","author":"RM Meek","year":"2011","unstructured":"Meek RM, Norwood T, Smith R, Brenkel IJ, Howie CR (2011) The risk of peri-prosthetic fracture after primary and revision total hip and knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93:96\u2013101. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1302\/0301-620X.93B1.25087","journal-title":"J Bone Joint Surg Br"},{"key":"6297_CR3","first-page":"293","volume":"44","author":"CP Duncan","year":"1995","unstructured":"Duncan CP, Masri BA (1995) Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect 44:293\u2013304","journal-title":"Instr Course Lect"},{"key":"6297_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1215","DOI":"10.2106\/JBJS.E.00457","volume":"88","author":"H Lindahl","year":"2006","unstructured":"Lindahl H, Garellick G, Regner H, Herberts P, Malchau H (2006) Three hundred and twenty-one periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:1215\u20131222. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2106\/JBJS.E.00457","journal-title":"J Bone Joint Surg Am"},{"key":"6297_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"234","DOI":"10.3978\/j.issn.2305-5839.2015.09.32","volume":"3","author":"AN Fleischman","year":"2015","unstructured":"Fleischman AN, Chen AF (2015) Periprosthetic fractures around the femoral stem: overcoming challenges and avoiding pitfalls. Ann Transl Med 3:234. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3978\/j.issn.2305-5839.2015.09.32","journal-title":"Ann Transl Med"},{"key":"6297_CR6","first-page":"237","volume":"47","author":"DS Garbuz","year":"1998","unstructured":"Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP (1998) Periprosthetic fractures of the femur: principles of prevention and management. Instr Course Lect 47:237\u2013242","journal-title":"Instr Course Lect"},{"key":"6297_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"De Maio F, Caterini A, Cesaretti L, Ziranu A, De Luna V, Farsetti P (2022) Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures treated by ORIF. Mid to long-term follow-up study in 28 patients. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 26:1\u20138. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.26355\/eurrev_202211_30275","DOI":"10.26355\/eurrev_202211_30275"},{"key":"6297_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"7","DOI":"10.1097\/BOT.0000000000002148","volume":"36","author":"DP Lewis","year":"2022","unstructured":"Lewis DP, Tarrant SM, Cornford L, Balogh ZJ (2022) Management of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures, revision total hip arthroplasty versus open reduction and internal fixation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma 36:7\u201316. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/BOT.0000000000002148","journal-title":"J Orthop Trauma"},{"key":"6297_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Haider T, Hanna P, Mohamadi A, Merchan N, McNichol M, Wixted JJ, Appleton PT, Nazarian A, von Keudell AG, Rodriguez EK (2021) Revision arthroplasty versus open reduction and internal fixation of Vancouver type-B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. JBJS Rev 9. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2106\/JBJS.RVW.21.00008","DOI":"10.2106\/JBJS.RVW.21.00008"},{"key":"6297_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"613","DOI":"10.1016\/0895-4356(92)90133-8","volume":"45","author":"RA Deyo","year":"1992","unstructured":"Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA (1992) Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 45:613\u2013619. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/0895-4356(92)90133-8","journal-title":"J Clin Epidemiol"},{"key":"6297_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Beals RK, Tower SS (1996) Periprosthetic fractures of the femur. An analysis of 93 fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res:238\u2013246. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/00003086-199606000-00029","DOI":"10.1097\/00003086-199606000-00029"},{"key":"6297_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE (1990) Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res:107\u2013128","DOI":"10.1097\/00003086-199008000-00022"},{"key":"6297_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"184","DOI":"10.1177\/1120700018772163","volume":"29","author":"J Moreta","year":"2019","unstructured":"Moreta J, Uriarte I, Ormaza A, Mosquera J, Iza K, Aguirre U, Legarreta MJ, Mart\u00ednez-De Los Mozos JL (2019) Outcomes of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty in elderly patients. Hip Int 29:184\u2013190. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1120700018772163","journal-title":"Hip Int"},{"key":"6297_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"261","DOI":"10.1016\/s0020-1383(99)00077-7","volume":"30","author":"S Kamineni","year":"1999","unstructured":"Kamineni S, Vindlacheruvu R, Ware HE (1999) Peri-prosthetic femoral shaft fractures treated with plate and cable fixation. Injury 30:261\u2013268. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/s0020-1383(99)00077-7","journal-title":"Injury"},{"key":"6297_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"S79","DOI":"10.1016\/j.arth.2020.02.030","volume":"35","author":"AM Schwartz","year":"2020","unstructured":"Schwartz AM, Farley KX, Guild GN, Bradbury TJ (2020) Projections and epidemiology of revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States to 2030. J Arthroplasty 35:S79\u2013S85. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.arth.2020.02.030","journal-title":"J Arthroplasty"},{"key":"6297_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"441","DOI":"10.1111\/ans.15473","volume":"90","author":"Y Deng","year":"2020","unstructured":"Deng Y, Kieser D, Wyatt M, Stringer M, Frampton C, Hooper G (2020) Risk factors for periprosthetic femoral fractures around total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg 90:441\u2013447. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/ans.15473","journal-title":"ANZ J Surg"},{"key":"6297_CR17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"578","DOI":"10.2106\/JBJS.17.00539","volume":"100","author":"MR Boylan","year":"2018","unstructured":"Boylan MR, Riesgo AM, Paulino CB, Slover JD, Zuckerman JD, Egol KA (2018) Mortality following periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures versus native hip fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 100:578\u2013585. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2106\/JBJS.17.00539","journal-title":"J Bone Joint Surg Am"},{"key":"6297_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"669","DOI":"10.1016\/j.arth.2014.11.006","volume":"30","author":"B Fuchtmeier","year":"2015","unstructured":"Fuchtmeier B, Galler M, Muller F (2015) Mid-term results of 121 periprosthetic femoral fractures: increased failure and mortality within but not after one postoperative year. J Arthroplasty 30:669\u2013674. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.arth.2014.11.006","journal-title":"J Arthroplasty"},{"key":"6297_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1061","DOI":"10.1007\/s00198-025-07486-1","volume":"36","author":"V Houel","year":"2025","unstructured":"Houel V, Marchasson G, Ramdane N, Philippoteaux C, Paccou J (2025) Patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures are older adults who are commonly diagnosed with osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 36:1061\u20131068. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00198-025-07486-1","journal-title":"Osteoporos Int"},{"key":"6297_CR20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Haddad FS (2020) Periprosthetic fractures: more challenges ahead. Bone Jt J 102-B:547\u2013549. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1302\/0301-620X.102B5.BJJ-2020-0427","DOI":"10.1302\/0301-620X.102B5.BJJ-2020-0427"},{"key":"6297_CR21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1133","DOI":"10.1007\/s00590-018-2181-3","volume":"28","author":"M Spina","year":"2018","unstructured":"Spina M, Scalvi A (2018) Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures: a comparative study of?stem revision versus internal fixation with plate. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 28:1133\u20131142. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00590-018-2181-3","journal-title":"Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol"},{"key":"6297_CR22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1467839237","DOI":"10.1177\/2151459319876859","volume":"10","author":"C Baum","year":"2019","unstructured":"Baum C, Leimbacher M, Kriechling P, Platz A, Cadosch D (2019) Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures Vancouver type B2: revision arthroplasty versus open reduction and internal fixation with locking compression plate. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil 10:1467839237. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/2151459319876859","journal-title":"Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil"},{"key":"6297_CR23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"533","DOI":"10.1530\/EOR-21-0129","volume":"7","author":"D Gonz\u00e1lez-Mart\u00edn","year":"2022","unstructured":"Gonz\u00e1lez-Mart\u00edn D, Pais-Brito JL, Gonz\u00e1lez-Casamayor S, Guerra-Ferraz A, Ojeda-Jim\u00e9nez J, Herrera-P\u00e9rez M (2022) Treatment algorithm in Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures: osteosynthesis vs revision arthroplasty. EFORT Open Rev 7:533\u2013541. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1530\/EOR-21-0129","journal-title":"EFORT Open Rev"},{"key":"6297_CR24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1647","DOI":"10.1007\/s00402-024-05223-7","volume":"144","author":"H Eckardt","year":"2024","unstructured":"Eckardt H, Windischbauer D, Morgenstern M, Stoffel K, Clauss M (2024) Analysis of complications in 97 periprosthetic Vancouver B2 fractures treated either by internal fixation or revision arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 144:1647\u20131653. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00402-024-05223-7","journal-title":"Arch Orthop Trauma Surg"},{"key":"6297_CR25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"6919","DOI":"10.1007\/s00402-023-04955-2","volume":"143","author":"S Tornago","year":"2023","unstructured":"Tornago S, Cavagnaro L, Mosconi L, Chiarlone F, Zanirato A, Patroniti N, Formica M (2023) Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures: clinical and radiological outcomes from a tertiary care center. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 143:6919\u20136926. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00402-023-04955-2","journal-title":"Arch Orthop Trauma Surg"},{"key":"6297_CR26","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.2106\/JBJS.RVW.21.00008","volume":"9","author":"T Haider","year":"2021","unstructured":"Haider T, Hanna P, Mohamadi A, Merchan N, McNichol M, Wixted JJ, Appleton PT, Nazarian A, von Keudell AG, Rodriguez EK (2021) Revision arthroplasty versus open reduction and internal fixation of Vancouver type-B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. JBJS Rev 9:10-2106. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2106\/JBJS.RVW.21.00008","journal-title":"JBJS Rev"},{"key":"6297_CR27","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Jain S, Farook MZ, Aslam-Pervez N, Amer M, Martin DH, Unnithan A, Middleton R, Dunlop DG, Scott CEH, West R, Pandit H (2023) A multicentre comparative analysis of fixation versus revision surgery for periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty with a cemented polished taper-slip femoral component. Bone Jt J 105-B:124\u2013134. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1302\/0301-620X.105B2.BJJ-2022-0685.R1","DOI":"10.1302\/0301-620X.105B2.BJJ-2022-0685.R1"},{"key":"6297_CR28","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Spina M, Scalvi A (2020) Periprosthetic fractures of the proximal femur within first year of the index hip prosthesis. Acta Biomed 91:e2020060. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.23750\/abm.v91i3.9683","DOI":"10.23750\/abm.v91i3.9683"},{"key":"6297_CR29","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"567","DOI":"10.1186\/s12891-023-06694-2","volume":"24","author":"L Sun","year":"2023","unstructured":"Sun L, Song W, Zhang Z, Xu Z, Sun M, Gao G, Jiang H, Ju C (2023) Femoral offset restoration affects the early outcome of revision in patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures of Vancouver B2 - a single-center retrospective cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 24:567. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12891-023-06694-2","journal-title":"BMC Musculoskelet Disord"},{"key":"6297_CR30","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"533","DOI":"10.1530\/EOR-21-0129","volume":"7","author":"D Gonzalez-Martin","year":"2022","unstructured":"Gonzalez-Martin D, Pais-Brito JL, Gonzalez-Casamayor S, Guerra-Ferraz A, Ojeda-Jimenez J, Herrera-Perez M (2022) Treatment algorithm in Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures: osteosynthesis vs revision arthroplasty. EFORT Open Rev 7:533\u2013541. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1530\/EOR-21-0129","journal-title":"EFORT Open Rev"},{"key":"6297_CR31","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"27","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.333.7557.27","volume":"333","author":"M Parker","year":"2006","unstructured":"Parker M, Johansen A (2006) Hip fracture. BMJ 333:27\u201330. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmj.333.7557.27","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"key":"6297_CR32","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3589","DOI":"10.1007\/s00402-021-03953-6","volume":"142","author":"S Martinov","year":"2022","unstructured":"Martinov S, D\u2019Ulisse S, Haumont E, Schiopu D, Reynders P, Ill\u00e9s T (2022) Comparative study of Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic fractures treated by internal fixation versus stem revision. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 142:3589\u20133597. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00402-021-03953-6","journal-title":"Arch Orthop Trauma Surg"},{"key":"6297_CR33","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1186\/s12891-025-09052-6","volume":"26","author":"F Tan","year":"2025","unstructured":"Tan F, Qiao Y, Zhou Y, Yang C, Song X, Li P, Zeng J, Li J, Lin Z, Liu P, Ye S, Ji J, Zhuang K, Zhou S (2025) Effectiveness of open reduction internal fixation versus revision arthroplasty around Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 26:852. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12891-025-09052-6","journal-title":"BMC Musculoskelet Disord"},{"key":"6297_CR34","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s00402-025-06126-x","volume":"145","author":"A Schweer","year":"2025","unstructured":"Schweer A, Schmidt H, Pass B, Schoeneberg C, Aigner R, Burchard R, Barsumyan A, Bliemel C, Bota O (2025) Revision arthroplasty versus open reduction and internal fixation in Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures: results from a matched pairs analysis of the registry for geriatric trauma of the DGU (\u00ae). Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 145:515. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00402-025-06126-x","journal-title":"Arch Orthop Trauma Surg"}],"container-title":["Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s00402-026-06297-1.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s00402-026-06297-1","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s00402-026-06297-1.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,16]],"date-time":"2026-06-16T22:16:14Z","timestamp":1781648174000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1007\/s00402-026-06297-1"}},"subtitle":["A comparative analysis with a minimum 5-year follow-up"],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,17]]},"references-count":34,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,12]]}},"alternative-id":["6297"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00402-026-06297-1","relation":{"has-preprint":[{"id-type":"doi","id":"10.21203\/rs.3.rs-7841350\/v1","asserted-by":"object"}]},"ISSN":["1434-3916"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1434-3916","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,17]]},"assertion":[{"value":"12 October 2025","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"31 March 2026","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"17 April 2026","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"order":1,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"The authors declare no competing interests.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Conflict of interest"}},{"value":"The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval was obtained from the all participants signed informed consent forms.","order":3,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Ethics approval and consent to participate"}},{"value":"Not applicable.","order":4,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Clinical trial number"}},{"value":"Not applicable.","order":5,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Consent for publication"}}],"article-number":"144"}}