Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures Research Articles

Does distance from joint line influence complications after distal femur fractures in native and periprosthetic knees?

BackgroundDistal femur fractures are projected to increase in incidence secondary to an aging population and growing utilization of total knee arthroplasty. Surgical management is the standard of care, but optimal treatment for far distal fractures is still unclear. Our study investigates if there are distal femur fractures too distal to be treated with lateral locked plating in periprosthetic fractures. MethodsOne hundred and ten consecutive patients treated with locked plating for distal femur fractures around a total knee replacement were identified using CPT codes. Fractures were classified by length of the distal fracture segment and Su classification. Complications studied were nonunion, malunion, infection, further fracture related surgery, readmission within 90 days, and mortality within 1 year of surgery. Sixty six fractures met inclusion criteria of 180 days of follow-up or sustaining a complication prior to180 days. ResultsThe size of the distal fracture segment and Su classification did not correlate with increased complication rate in periprosthetic distal femur fractures. ConclusionsThere was no difference between complications following lateral locked plating of distal femur fractures based on the size of the distal fracture segment in periprosthetic fractures. Lateral locked plating is an effective treatment modality for these fractures regardless of how distal the fracture extends.

What's New in Orthopaedic Trauma.

What's New in Orthopaedic Trauma.

Comminuted periprosthetic distal femoral fractures have greater postoperative extension malalignment

IntroductionComminution is a significant aspect of periprosthetic distal femoral fracture characterization and may influence post-surgical outcomes. Existing classification systems that guide treatment decisions do not take into account comminution and current literature is unclear on which surgical approach is optimal. We hypothesize that fractures with comminution will have poorer quality post-reduction alignment, especially with a lateral approach. Materials and methods37 study patients were identified with billing codes designating a distal femoral periprosthetic fracture. A retrospective chart review was performed to categorize fractures by absence or presence of comminution and medial parapatellar versus lateral surgical approach. These patients underwent an imaging evaluation for the primary outcome of reduction quality including the anatomic lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA) and the posterior distal femoral angle (PDFA). Differences in radiographic outcomes were analyzed with Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis tests, and analysis by approach was through Fisher's exact test. ResultsPatients with comminuted fractures had significantly greater extension of the fragment (PDFA = 95.4° vs 90.0°, p = 0.018) and similar coronal alignment (LDFA = 85.3° vs 86.3°, p = 0.83) of the knee compared to non-comminuted fractures after surgical reduction. This difference was more prominent amongst those treated with a lateral approach (PDFA = 96.1° vs 89.4°, p = 0.032) than with a medial approach (PDFA = 93.7° vs 91.5°, p = 0.41) (Table 1). DiscussionCurrent classification systems and treatment guidelines for periprosthetic distal femoral fractures do not adequately address several issues that may influence treatment outcomes, especially comminution. Comminuted fractures had greater post-reduction extension malalignment, falling outside the recommended PDFA range of 87–90°, especially with a lateral approach. Consideration should be given to surgical approach and techniques to reduce excessive extension when treating comminuted periprosthetic distal femoral fractures.

New Classification for Periprosthetic Distal Femoral Fractures Based on Locked-Plate Fixation Following Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Multicenter Study.

This study aimed to establish a new classification using locked-plate fixation for periprosthetic distal femoral fracture (PDFF) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and to determine when dual locked-plate fixation is necessary through defining this classification. One-hundred fifteen consecutive PDFFs that underwent operative treatment were reviewed from 2011 to 2019 with minimum 1-year follow-up. Most PDFFs were fixed with single or dual locked-plate fixations using the minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis technique. Based on preoperative radiographs, PDFFs were classified according to the level of main fracture line relative to the anterior flange of femoral component: type I and II, main fracture line located proximal and distal to the anterior flange; and type III, component instability regardless of fracture line requiring revisional TKA. Furthermore, type II fractures were subclassified based on the direction of fracture beak as follows: type IIL, lateral-beak; type IIM, medial-beak. The incidence, treatment methods, and complications were analyzed according to the classification. Incidences of type I, IIL, IIM, and III were 64.4%, 8.7%, 24.3%, and 2.6%, respectively. Meanwhile, most PDFFs in type I and II were treated with lateral single locked-plate fixations, except for type IIM, which was treated with either single or dual locked-plate fixations. Overall complications were significantly higher in type II (28.9%) than in type I (10.8%, P= .019). In type IIM, bone union-related complications were significantly higher in single locked-plate fixation (50.0%) than in dual locked-plate fixation (5.6%; P= .013). The new classification provides practical and obvious strategies for the treatment of PDFF following TKA using locked-plate fixation. For type IIM fracture, dual plate fixation is necessary to prevent fixation failure or nonunion.

Clinical Outcomes Following Distal Femur Replacement for Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Management of periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PDFFs) is often complicated by poor bone quality and limited bone stock making fixation attempts challenging and prone to failure. Distal femoral replacement (DFR) is being used to treat such injuries although outcome data are mostly from small case series. We sought to systematically review the literature on DFR for PDFF to summarize their outcomes. PubMed, MEDLINE (EBSCO), and Cochrane Central Database were searched to identify reports of PDFFs treated with DFR. Articles reporting on 5 or more knees were systematically reviewed for clinical function, complications, and mortality. Random effects meta-analysis was used to create summary estimates and publication bias also assessed. Of 287 identified and screened articles, 15 were included, 14 retrospective, reporting on 352 knees. Following DFR, 87% (95% confidence interval [CI] 71-95) of patients were able to ambulate. The mean postoperative Knee Society Score was 80 (95% CI 77-84). The risk of periprosthetic joint infection was 4.3% (95% CI 2.2-8.2). One-year postoperative mortality rate was 10% (95% CI 6-18). There was some evidence of publication bias with a trend toward smaller studies reporting lower infection risk and mortality. DFR for PDFFs is associated with high functional outcomes and a relatively modest risk of infection. The periprosthetic joint infection and 1-year mortality rates reported here should be considered lower bounds estimates due to publication bias and loss to follow-up. Further investigation of long-term outcomes following DFR for PDFFs is warranted though short-term functional outcomes are promising.

Periprosthetic knee fractures in an elderly population: open reduction and internal fixation vs distal femur megaprostheses.

The incidence of periprosthetic fractures of distal femur (PPDFFx) after primary total knee arthroplasties is described around 0.3% and 2.5% and it is increasing as the number of patients with total knee arthroplasty continues to arise. surgical options treatments for PPDFFx include fixation in the form of eather Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), or retrograde intramedullary nailing (RIMN), or conventional (non locked) plating, or locked plating such as the Less Invasive Stabilization System (LISS), or dynamic condylar screws. In recent years, however, the use of megaprostheses has been increasing. Patients with periprosthetic fractures of distal femur after primary total knee arthroplasties treated with ORIF or with the use of Distal femur replacement (DFR) were retrospectively analyzed in this to evaluate differences in intra-operative blood loss, need of blood trasfusion, weight bearing, range of motion, rate of complications, rate of revision surgery and functional outcome according Oxford Knee Score between two groups. Treatment of Periprosthetic distal femur fracture remains controversial. While ORIF seems to guarantee less percentage of complications and reoperation rate, those treated with megaprosthesis seem to gain better range of motion in a very short post-operative time. In the future it will be necessary to investigate with greater numbers possible advantages and disadvantages of the various treatments in periprosthetic distal femur fractures.

Use of an intramedullary fibular strut allograft and dual locking plate in periprosthetic fractures above total knee arthroplasty: new application of a well-known treatment method in trauma.

Augmenting fracture fixation with intramedullary fibular graft has seen several applications such as in comminuted proximal humerus fractures, and femoral neck and shaft nonunion. The purpose of this study was to report the first case series demonstrating the novel application of an intramedullary fibular allograft strut and dual locking plates on complicated periprosthetic fracture of distal femur. The patient demographics, weight-bearing status, and radiographic and clinical outcomes of six patients, who were treated for periprosthetic distal femur fractures using an intramedullary fibular allograft strut and dual locking plate, between January 2018 and April 2020 were analyzed. Postoperative range of knee motion showed median 10' (range 10-20) of flexion contracture and 90' (range 80-110) of further flexion. Postoperative joint function was assessed according to the Kolmert functional criteria, with "excellent to good" in angular deformity and "Good to fair" result in range of motion and pain. RUSH score was assessed, and median score was 24 (range 18-26). All patients were able to ambulate without assistance 6months after surgery. In summary, the application of fibular strut graft and dual locking plate might be an option in complicated distal femur fracture above total knee arthroplasty. Albeit with an available number, such application showed promise as an intramedullary and cortical support for both reduction and maintenance of correction alignment, length, and prevention of further angular deformity. Surgical technique and Cases-series.

Survivorship, complications, and outcomes following distal femoral arthroplasty for non-neoplastic indications.

AimsEndoprosthetic reconstruction with a distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA) can be used to treat distal femoral bone loss from oncological and non-oncological causes. This study reports the short-term implant survivorship, complications, and risk factors for patients who underwent DFA for non-neoplastic indications.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of 75 patients from a single institution who underwent DFA for non-neoplastic indications, including aseptic loosening or mechanical failure of a previous prosthesis (n = 25), periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 23), and native or periprosthetic distal femur fracture or nonunion (n = 27). Patients with less than 24 months’ follow-up were excluded. We collected patient demographic data, complications, and reoperations. Reoperation for implant failure was used to calculate implant survivorship.ResultsOverall one- and five-year implant survivorship was 87% and 76%, respectively. By indication for DFA, mechanical failure had one- and five-year implant survivorship of 92% and 68%, PJI of 91% and 72%, and distal femur fracture/nonunion of 78% and 70% (p = 0.618). A total of 37 patients (49%) experienced complications and 27 patients (36%) required one or more reoperation. PJI (n = 16, 21%), aseptic loosening (n = 9, 12%), and wound complications (n = 8, 11%) were the most common complications. Component revision (n = 10, 13.3%) and single-stage exchange for PJI (n = 9, 12.0 %) were the most common reoperations. Only younger age was significantly associated with increased complications (mean 67 years (SD 9.1)) with complication vs 71 years (SD 9.9) without complication; p = 0.048).ConclusionDFA is a viable option for distal femoral bone loss from a range of non-oncological causes, demonstrating acceptable short-term survivorship but with high overall complication rates.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):173–181.

The Outcome of Fixing Distal Femur Periprosthetic Fracture around Total Knee Replacement using a Locking Plate Non-Contact Bridging (NCB).

Introduction:Surgical fixation of peri-prosthetic distal femur fractures around knee replacements poses a challenge, especially in frail patients, with variable outcomes reported in the literature. This study looks at the outcomes of a consecutive series of patients presenting with such fractures and treated by using a locking plate fixation.Materials and methods:A total of 21 consecutive patients who were admitted to our trauma unit over 31 months and underwent fixation with the Non-Contact Polyaxial Locking plate system were retrospectively identified and their acute treatment with follow-up outcomes were analysed.Results:The mean age was 81 years and 71% were in ASA grades 3 and 4. Fracture morphologies were classified as per the Su classification, yielding 8 (38%) classified as Su one, 4 (19%) as Su two, and 9 (43%) as Su type three. Postoperatively, 2 patients (9.5%) died due to hospital-acquired pneumonia, and another 2 patients (9.5%) developed wound infections necessitating further return to theatre. Additionally, 2 (9.5%) patients had distal femoral replacements due to non-union. Mean discharge time was 28 days with 12 patients (55% of patients) starting protected weight-bearing six weeks after surgery.Conclusion:The incidence of morbidity, mortality was significant and re-operation was required in patients treated as described, and these were partly attributed to the patient’s average age and the pre-existing comorbidities. Significant variations were noted in the time to discharge, rehabilitation, and time to achieve fracture union. However, the majority of fractures did eventually unite. Patients with comminuted fractures and insufficient bone stock are more likely to progress to non-union and end up requiring revision knee arthroplasty.

Distal Femur Replacement Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Treatment of Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

To compare complications and functional outcomes of treatment with primary distal femoral replacement (DFR) versus open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for English language studies up to May 19, 2020, identifying 913 studies. Studies that assessed complications of periprosthetic distal femur fractures with primary DFR or ORIF were included. Studies with sample size ≤5, mean age <55, nontraumatic indications for DFR, ORIF with nonlocking plates, native distal femoral fractures, or revision surgeries were excluded. Selection adhered to the PRISMA criteria. Study quality was assessed using previously reported criteria. There were 40 Level IV studies, 17 Level III studies, and 1 Level II study. Fifty-eight studies with 1484 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Complications assessed {incidence rate ratio [IRR] [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.78 [0.59-1.03]} and reoperation or revision [IRR (95% CI): 0.71 (0.49-1.04)] were similar between the DFR and ORIF cohorts. The mean knee range of motion was greater in the ORIF cohort (DFR: 90.47 vs. ORIF: 100.36, P < 0.05). The mean Knee Society Score (KSS) (DFR: 79.41 vs. ORIF: 82.07, P = 0.35) and return to preoperative ambulatory status were similar [IRR (95% CI): 0.82 (0.48-1.41)]. In comparing complications among patients treated for periprosthetic distal femur fracture with DFR or ORIF, there was no difference between the groups. There were also no differences in functional outcomes, although knee range of motion was greater in the ORIF group. This systematic review and meta-analysis highlights the need for future prospective trials evaluating the outcomes of these divergent treatment strategies. Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Very Distal Femoral Periprosthetic Fractures: Replacement Versus Fixation: A Systematic Review.

To synthesize all-cause reoperations and complications data as well as secondary clinical and functional outcomes, after the management of very distal femur periprosthetic fractures (vDFPFs) in a geriatric patient population with either a distal femoral locking plate (DFLP) or distal femoral replacement (DFR). MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for English language articles from inception to March 16, 2020, in accordance to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting the management of vDFPFs in adults older than 65 years with either a DFLP or DFR were included. To ensure this review solely focused on very distal femoral periprosthetic fractures, only fractures of the following classifications were included: (1) Lewis and Rorabeck type II or III, (2) Su and Associates' Classification of Supracondylar Fractures of the Distal Femur type III, (3) Backstein et al type F2, and/or (4) Kim et al type II or III. Three reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies. Study validity was assessed using the methodological index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS), a quality assessment tool for nonrandomized controlled studies in surgery. Twenty-five studies with 649 vDFPFs were included for analysis. There were 440 knees in the DFLP group (mean age range: 65.9-88.3 years) and 209 knees in the DFR group (mean age range: 71.0-84.8 years). Because of the literature's heterogeneity, the data were qualitatively synthesized. vDFPFs in the elderly treated with DFR underwent fewer reoperations relative to DFLP (0%-45% vs. 0%-77%, respectively). Time to weight-bearing was observably shorter in DFR studies relative to DFLP studies. Functional outcomes and postoperative range of motion indicated a trend for DFLP knees to outperform DFR knees. Future research should include prospective studies and cost-effectiveness evaluations to better understand the utility of DFR for these fractures. Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

224 A 5-Year Observational Study on Distal Femoral Periprosthetic Fractures in Elderly Patients in a Single Institution: Distal Femoral Replacement vs. Internal Fixation

Abstract Aim To evaluate the outcome of distal femoral replacements versus internal fixation for elderly patients with distal femoral periprosthetic fracture in a single institution. Method A five-year retrospective observational study was conducted of a consecutive series of patients with distal femoral periprosthetic fracture who underwent either distal femoral replacement (DFR) or internal fixation (IF) in a tertiary referral centre. Clinical information analysed included patient demographics, co-morbidities, interval between primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to distal femoral periprosthetic fracture, type of fracture, operative technique, preoperative ASA grade, post-operative complications, intensive therapy unit (ITU) stay, length of hospital stay (LOS), re-fixation and mortality. Results Study included 27 patients of which fourteen patients underwent a DFR while 13 underwent an IF. 89% of the patients were females. Mean age of the patients at the time of fracture was 85 versus 80 (DFR vs IF). The mean interval from the primary TKA to the fracture were 80 months (range 0-181). There were no intraoperative complications in either group. Three patients required ITU stay from the DFR group while one patient from the IF group required re-fixation. Median LOS was 56 days (range 9-144) after DFR and 55 days (range 4-83) after IF. There was one 30-day mortality in the DFR group. One-year mortality for the DFR group was 7% vs 15% for the IF group. Conclusions In our study, DFR and IF were observed to have similar LOS with a higher mortality in the IF group at one year. There was one re-fixation in the IF group.

To Fix or Revise: Differences in Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fracture Management Between Trauma and Arthroplasty Surgeons.

This study sought to determine the effect of trauma fellowship training on the surgical decision to fix or revise to distal femoral replacement in periprosthetic distal femur fractures. An anonymous online survey including nine cases of geriatric periprosthetic distal femur fractures was distributed through the Orthopaedic Trauma Association website. Respondents were asked whether they would recommend fixation or revision to distal femoral replacement. Fractures were classified by the location relative to the anterior flange (proximal or distal) and the presence or absence of comminution. Recommendations were compared between type of fellowship completed (trauma, arthroplasty, or both), practice setting, and number of periprosthetic distal femur fractures treated monthly. One hundred fifty-one surgeon survey responses were included. Completion of a trauma fellowship was associated with a higher likelihood of recommending fixation for any periprosthetic distal femur fracture compared with arthroplasty training (odds ratio [OR] 2.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.97 to 3.29; P < 0.0001). Disagreement was significant for comminuted proximal (OR 6.90, 95% CI 3.24 to 14.68; P < 0.0001), simple distal (OR 20.90, 95% CI 6.41 to 67.71; P < 0.001), and comminuted distal fractures (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.66 to 3.68; P < 0.0001). Dual fellowship-trained surgeons were less likely to recommend fixation than surgeons who completed a trauma fellowship alone (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.93; P = 0.027) and more likely to recommend fixation than surgeons who completed an arthroplasty fellowship alone (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.63; P = 0.012). Surgeons who treat three or more periprosthetic distal femur fractures monthly showed a significant preference for fracture fixation compared with lower volume surgeons (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.62 to 3.68; P < 0.0001). Fellowship-trained trauma surgeons show a notable preference for fracture fixation over distal femoral replacement for periprosthetic distal femur fractures, as compared with arthroplasty-trained surgeons. Additional research is needed to clarify surgical indications that maximize outcomes for these injuries.

Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis with dual plating for periprosthetic distal femoral fractures following total knee arthroplasty

IntroductionAdequate treatment for periprosthetic distal femur fractures is challenging because of various reasons, including severe osteoporosis and distal fragments that are too small or too distal. We have introduced a new surgical technique for dual plating of periprosthetic distal femur fractures following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and determined the clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) with a dual locking compression plate (LCP).Materials and methodsBetween January 2010 and July 2019, 18 patients [mean age, 74.8 (68–89) years; average follow-up period, 14.8 (12–43) months] underwent MIPO with distal femoral LCP laterally and proximal humeral internal locking system (PHILOS) medially for periprosthetic distal femoral fractures following TKA. The minimum follow-up was 1 year. The clinical and radiological outcomes were assessed using the modified WOMAC scores, knee range of motion, time to callus formation, time to union, and complications of malunion, nonunion, and shortening.ResultsThe average time to union was 18.4 weeks (range, 10–51 weeks) and to callus formation was 7.8 weeks (range, 2–14 weeks). At the 1-year follow-up, the average JLETS was 37.6 (range, 24–53), average knee ROM was 110.3° (range, 80–135°), and average varus-valgus angles of the distal femur were 3.2° (range, −2.9–10.5°). No nonunion, broken plates, or implant failure occurred. Malunion occurred in three patients.ConclusionMIPO with dual LCP is a reliable method for stabilizing periprosthetic distal femoral fractures following TKA, with satisfactory bone union rates and low complication rates.

Immediate weight-bearing is safe following lateral locked plate fixation of periprosthetic distal femoral fractures

PurposeThis study aimed to determine whether unrestricted weight-bearing as tolerated (WBAT) following lateral locking plate (LLP) fixation of periprosthetic distal femoral fractures (PDFFs) is associated with increased failure and reoperation, compared with restricted weight-bearing (RWB).Materials and methodsIn a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with unilateral PDFFs undergoing LLP fixation, patients prescribed WBAT were compared with those prescribed 6 weeks of RWB. The primary outcome measure was reoperation. Kaplan–Meier and Cox multivariable analyses were performed.ResultsThere were 43 patients (mean age 80.9 ± 11.7 years, body mass index 26.8 ± 5.7 kg/m2 and 86.0% female): 28 WBAT and 15 RWB. There were more interprosthetic fractures in the RWB group (p = 0.040). Mean follow-up was 3.8 years (range 1.0–10.4). Eight patients (18.6%) underwent reoperation. Kaplan–Meier analysis demonstrated no difference in 2-year survival between WBAT (80.6%, 95% CI 65.3–95.9) and RWB (83.3%, 95% CI 62.1–100.0; p = 0.54). Cox analysis showed increased reoperation risk with medial comminution (hazard ratio 10.7, 95% CI 1.5–80; p = 0.020) and decreased risk with anatomic reduction (hazard ratio 0.11, 95% CI 0.01–1.0; p = 0.046). Immediate weight-bearing did not significantly affect the risk of reoperation compared with RWB (relative risk 1.03, 95% CI 0.61–1.74; p = 0.91).ConclusionsLLP fixation failure was associated with medial comminution and non-anatomic reductions, not with postoperative weight-bearing. Medial comminution should be managed with additional fixation. Weight-bearing restrictions additional to this appear unnecessary and should be avoided.

Outcomes of periprosthetic distal femur fractures following total knee arthroplasty: Intramedullary nailing versus plating

BackgroundPeriprosthetic distal femur fractures (PPDFFs) present a challenge in terms of optimizing fixation in patients with poor bone quality and limited bone stock. The main treatment options include laterally based plating and intramedullary nailing. We hypothesized that treatment of PPDFFs with intramedullary nails would result in improved union rate, fewer complications, and an equivalent rate of malalignment compared to plating. Materials and methodsCases of PPDFFs were identified through a query of our institutional trauma database between 2011-2018. Adult patients (>18 years) were included if they sustained a fracture of the distal femur around a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) that was not initially treated at another institution. The anatomic lateral distal femoral angle (aLDFA) and the anatomic posterior distal femoral angle (aPDFA) were measured on the follow-up radiographs. ResultsNinety-seven PPDFFs in 97 patients, with a mean age of 76 years and 74% female were identified. Plating was used in 74 patients (76%) and 23 patients (24%) were treated with intramedullary nailing. Extension deformity in the sagittal plane was more common following intramedullary nailing compared to plating (10/23 nailing versus 10/74 plating) (p=0.002). There were 12 reoperations (12/75, 16%), and the method of fixation was not associated with rate of reoperation (p=0.9). ConclusionIntramedullary nailing was associated with an increased risk of malalignment, most commonly an extension deformity, in this series. However, malalignment was not associated with worse outcomes.

Management of low periprosthetic distal femoral fractures

Debate continues regarding the optimum management of periprosthetic distal femoral fractures (PDFFs). This study aims to determine which operative treatment is associated with the lowest perioperative morbidity and mortality when treating low (Su type II and III) PDFFs comparing lateral locking plate fixation (LLP-ORIF) or distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA). This was a retrospective cohort study of 60 consecutive unilateral (PDFFs) of Su types II (40/60) and III (20/60) in patients aged ≥ 60 years: 33 underwent LLP-ORIF (mean age 81.3 years (SD 10.5), BMI 26.7 (SD 5.5); 29/33 female); and 27 underwent DFA (mean age 78.8 years (SD 8.3); BMI 26.7 (SD 6.6); 19/27 female). The primary outcome measure was reoperation. Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications, calculated blood loss, transfusion requirements, functional mobility status, length of acute hospital stay, discharge destination and mortality. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed. Cox multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for reoperation after LLP-ORIF. Follow-up was at mean 3.8 years (1.0 to 10.4). One-year mortality was 13% (8/60). Reoperation was more common following LLP-ORIF: 7/33 versus 0/27 (p = 0.008). Five-year survival for reoperation was significantly better following DFA; 100% compared to 70.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 51.8% to 89.8%, p = 0.006). There was no difference for the endpoint mechanical failure (including radiological loosening); ORIF 74.5% (56.3 to 92.7), and DFA 78.2% (52.3 to 100, p = 0.182). Reoperation following LLP-ORIF was independently associated with medial comminution; hazard ratio (HR) 10.7 (1.45 to 79.5, p = 0.020). Anatomical reduction was protective against reoperation; HR 0.11 (0.013 to 0.96, p = 0.046). When inadequately fixed fractures were excluded, there was no difference in five-year survival for either reoperation (p = 0.156) or mechanical failure (p = 0.453). Absolute reoperation rates are higher following LLP fixation of low PDFFs compared to DFA. Where LLP-ORIF was well performed with augmentation of medial comminution, there was no difference in survival compared to DFA. Though necessary in very low fractures, DFA should be used with caution in patients with greater life expectancies due to the risk of longer term aseptic loosening. Cite this article: Bone Joint J2021;103-B(4):635-643.

Outcomes of distal femoral arthroplasty after periprosthetic fractures: minimum 2-year follow-up

distal femoral periprosthetic fracture (DFPPF) is a serious complication following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Recently, treatment of DFPPF with distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA) has gained popularity because of its posited benefits for both patients and the medical system. Short-term follow-up trials investigating DFA have demonstrated acceptable results with regards to function, pain relief and lower postoperative complications than ORIF in elderly patients. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate a consecutive series of DFPPF treated with DFA, with a minimum 2- year follow-up. We performed a retrospective study asses- sing the outcomes of distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA) for patients diagnosed with DFPPF. Twenty patients were identified. The mean age of patients was 76.3 (SD, 9.41), the average time from the fracture to revision surgery was 6.7 days (SD, 11.35), The average operative time was 93.5 minutes (SD,16.6). The average follow-up time was 50.15 months (SD, 20.87). During this time, two patients (10%) had complications. One patient experienced a knee dislocation and the second patient had recurrent periprosthetic infections. At final follow up, the mean knee society score was 86.25 (SD, 9.44), the mean Forgotten joint score was 62.16(SD, 23.45) and 93.7 percent of patients were ambulatory. DFA following DFPPF is associated with high success rates and provides patients with the opportunity for return of function in a safe and reliable manner.

Early complications and reoperation rates are similar amongst open reduction internal fixation, intramedullary nail, and distal femoral replacement for periprosthetic distal femur fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Our purpose was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate complication and revision rates for periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PPDFF) treated with: (1) ORIF using periarticular locking plates (ORIF), (2) retrograde intramedullary nail (IMN), and (3) distal femoral replacement (DFR). Systematic review of the literature was performed to identify eligible studies (N = 52). Identified treatment groups were: ORIF (N = 1205 cases), IMN (N = 272 cases), and DFR (N = 353 cases). Median follow-up was 30months (range 6-96months). Primary outcomes were: (1) major complication rates and (2) reoperation rates over the follow-up period. Secondary outcomes were incidence of deep infection, periprosthetic fracture, mortality over the follow-up period, 1-year mortality, non-union, malunion, delayed union, and hardware failure. Data for primary and secondary outcomes were pooled and unadjusted analysis was performed. Meta-analysis was performed on subset of individual studies comparing at least two of three treatment groups (N = 14 studies). Odds-ratios and their respective standard errors were determined for each treatment group combination. Maximum likelihood random effects meta-analysis was conducted for primary outcomes. From the systematic review, major complication rates (p = 0.55) and reoperation rates (p = 0.20) were not significantly different between the three treatment groups. DFR group had a higher incidence of deep infection relative to IMN and ORIF groups (p = 0.03). Malunion rates were higher in IMN versus ORIF (p = 0.02). For the meta-analysis, odds of major complications were not significantly different between IMN versus DFR (OR 1.39 [0.23-8.52]), IMN versus ORIF (OR 0.86 [0.48-1.53]), or the ORIF versus DFR (OR 0.91 [0.52-1.59]). Additionally, odds of a reoperation were not significantly different between IMN versus DFR (OR 0.59 [0.08-4.11]), IMN versus ORIF (OR 1.26 [0.66-2.40]), or ORIF versus DFR (OR 0.91 [0.51-1.55]). There was no difference in major complications or reoperations between the three treatment groups. Deep infection rates were higher in DFR relative to internal fixation, malunion rates were higher in IMN versus ORIF, and periprosthetic fracture rates were higher in DFR and IMN versus ORIF.

Distal femur periprosthetic knee fractures in elderly patients: clinical and radiographic outcome after internal fixation.

Background and aim of the work:The incidence of periprosthetic knee fractures is steadily increasing, especially in the geriatric population. Surgical treatment in these patients must consider the poor bone quality and the risks of general complications related to age and comorbidities. The aim of the present study is to analyze the clinical and radiographic outcome of internal fixation for periprosthetic knee fractures of the distal femur in elderly patients (>75aa).Methods:All patients treated at the Orthopedic and Traumatology Unit of Cattinara Hospital-ASUGI (Trieste, Italy) between September 2014 and September 2019 for distal femur periprosthetic fracture after total knee replacement were included in the study. Mortality, complications, radiographic healing and functional outcomes were retrospectively evaluated. Data collection was conducted by clinical database searching and telephone interview. Results were compared with the literature.Results:The study population included 19 patients, F:M 16:3, mean age 84 years. Plate fixation was used in the majority of cases (90%). One-year mortality was 21.05%. Radiographic healing of the fracture occurred in 92% of cases. Nonetheless, 61% of patients saw a worsening in their functional outcome.Conclusion:Internal fixation is a valuable and safe option for distal femur periprosthetic fracture treatment in the elderly. The significant impact of periprosthetic knee fractures on the medium- to long-term survival and quality of life of the elderly patient is confirmed. (www.actabiomedica.it)