Operative Results of Periprosthetic Fractures of The Distal Femur In A Single Academic Unit

The Effect of Periprosthetic Fractures Following Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty on Long-Term Functional Outcomes and Quality of Life

Background

Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) can be devastating, yet their long-term impact has not been well described. The aim of this study is to compare the long-term outcomes of patients who sustained a PPF about a TJA with those of patients who underwent an uncomplicated TJA.

Methods

Patients who sustained a PPF after primary TJA between 2005 and 2014 were identified. Seventeen patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up (PPF cohort) were compared to a matched cohort of 67 patients who underwent uncomplicated TJA. Demographic data, comorbidities, surgical details, and complications were analyzed. Quality of life and functional outcomes were assessed with 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), Western Ontario and McMasdter Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), and Knee Society Function Score.

Results

The overall complication rate was 41.2% in the PPF group, including 3 additional fractures (17.6%), 2 wound infections (11.8%), one prosthetic joint infection (5.8%), and one painful patellar hardware necessitating removal (5.8%). At 2 years, both physical and mental components of the SF-12 were significantly lower for the PPF cohort vs control (SF-12-P, 28.7 ± 4.4 vs 40.8 ± 10.3, P < .001, SF-12-M, 36.7 ± 5.07 vs 55.0 ± 8.19, P < .0001). WOMAC pain and function scores were also significantly worse in the PPF cohort vs control at 2 years (WOMAC-pain, 38.8 ± 29.9 vs 87.4 ± 22.1; P < .0001, WOMAC-function, 40.7 ± 8.7 vs 76.1 ± 20.3; P < .0001). At 2 years, score improvements from prearthroplasty baseline were significantly greater in the control cohort vs PPF for SF-12-physical, WOMAC-pain, and WOMAC-function.

Conclusions

Patients who sustained PPFs following TJA have poor long-term outcomes despite appropriate treatment. These results can help counsel patients and encourage heightened efforts to minimize the risk of PPF.

Level of Evidence

Level III.

Megaprosthesis in Non-Oncologic Settings-A Systematic Review of the Literature

Modular megaprostheses (MPs) are commonly used after bone-tumor resection, but they can offer a limb salvage solution in massive bone defects. The aim of this systematic review of the Literature is to provide a comprehensive data collection concerning the use of MPs in non-oncologic cases, and to provide an overview of this topic, especially from an epidemiologic point of view. Three different databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched for relevant articles, and further references were obtained by cross-referencing. Sixty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting on cases of MP in non-oncologic cases. A total of 2598 MPs were retrieved. Among these, 1353 (52.1%) were distal femur MPs, 941 (36.2%) were proximal femur MPs, 29 (1.4%) were proximal tibia MPs and 259 (10.0%) were total femur MPs. Megaprostheses were most commonly used to treat periprosthetic fractures (1158 cases, 44.6%), in particular in the distal femur (859, 74.2%). Overall, complications were observed in 513 cases (19.7%). Type I (soft tissue failures) and type IV (infection) according to the Henderson classification were the most frequent (158 and 213, respectively). In conclusion, patients with severe post-traumatic deformities and/or significant bone loss who have had previous septic complications should be considered as oncologic patients, not because of the disease, but because of the limited therapeutic options available. The benefits of this treatment include relatively short operative times and immediate weight-bearing, thus making MP particularly attractive in the lower limb.

Optimal surgical treatment for periprosthetic distal femoral fractures after total knee arthroplasty: a Bayesian-based network analysis

BACKGROUND

The surgical methods for periprosthetic distal femoral fractures (PDFFs) after total knee arthroplasty included locking compression plate (LCP), retrograde intramedullary nailing (RIMN), and distal femoral replacement (DFR). However, the optimal treatment remains controversial. We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to provide the optimal surgical method for PDFFs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases, including Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PubMed, were searched for studies that compared LCP, RIMN, and DFR for PDFFs. The quality of the included studies was assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Pairwise meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager version 5.4. The NMA was conducted in Aggregate Data Drug Information System software version 1.16.5. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for postoperative complications and reoperations.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies and 1198 patients were included, of whom 733 for LCP, 282 for RIMN, and 183 for DFR. Pairwise meta-analysis comparing LCP to RIMN and LCP to DFR showed no significant difference in complications and reoperations except that RIMN had a higher risk of malunion comparing to LCP (OR 3.05; 95% CI 1.46-6.34; P = 0.003). No statistically significant effects were found in the NMA of overall complications, infection, and reoperation. However, results of rank probabilities showed that DFR ranked best in overall complications and reoperation, RIMN ranked best in infection but worst in reoperation, and LCP ranked worst in infection and middle in reoperation.

DISCUSSION

We found similar complication rate and reoperation rate between LCP, RIMN, and DFR. The results of rank probabilities favored DFR, and further studies with high-level evidence are expected to verify the optimal surgical method for PDFFs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II; network meta-analysis.

Distal Femoral Replacement versus Operative Fixation for Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and distal femoral replacement (DFR) have been utilized in the management of periprosthetic distal femur fractures. At present, much of the literature has been limited to small retrospective series. The purpose of the current investigation was to present the results of pooled data to determine the complication rates associated with ORIF and DFR.

METHODS

Publications from 2010 to 2020 describing 10 or more periprosthetic distal femur fractures treated with ORIF (ie, single plate, intramedullary nail, and dual fixation) or DFR were included, resulting in 32 publications and 1,258 fractures (977 ORIF and 281 DFR). Occurrence of surgical complications, reoperations, and medical complications were evaluated and compared.

RESULTS

The rate of surgical complications (ORIF versus DFR, 20.5 versus 14.9%, P = 1.0) and reoperations (12.9 versus 12.5%, P = 1.0) following DFR were similar. However, pooled analyses demonstrated that patients treated with DFR had a higher medical complication rate (ORIF versus DFR, 8.5 versus 23.1%, P = .0006).

CONCLUSION

ORIF and DFR for the treatment of periprosthetic distal femur fractures have similar surgical complication and reoperation profiles. While this review found an increased rate of medical complication following DFR, there are limitations in quality reporting in the literature, which should be considered when interpreting the study's findings. Failed ORIF can be salvaged with DFR, but the difficulty of this reoperation is dependent on the ORIF technique that was used. With future prospective studies, this review can help guide management of these fractures.

Periprosthetic joint infection is the main reason for failure in patients following periprosthetic fracture treated with revision arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Periprosthetic fracture after primary total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA; TKA) can be challenging, requiring open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), revision, or both. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes and risk factors associated with re-revision surgery following failed revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic fracture.

METHODS

A total of 316 consecutive THA patients and 79 consecutive TKA patients underwent a revision for periprosthetic fracture, of which 68 THA patients (21.5%) and 15 TKA patients (18.9%) underwent re-revision surgery. The most common indication for hip and knee re-revision was periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in 28 THA patients (46.6%) and 11 TKA patients (47.8%).

RESULTS

The complication rates of THA and TKA revision were 24.3% and 25.3% respectively, and 35.0% and 39.1% respectively for re-revision surgery at an average follow-up of 4.5 years. Periprosthetic joint infection was the most common indication for THA and TKA re-revision (46.7%; 47.8%) and third revision surgery (15.0%; 13.0%). Factors significantly contributing to an increased risk of THA and TKA re-revision included revision with plate fixation and revision with combined ORIF.

CONCLUSION

The overall complication rate of THA and TKA re-revision surgery following failed revision surgery for periprosthetic fracture was higher than of revision surgery. The most common indication for re-revision and third revision was periprosthetic joint infection. These findings may assist surgeons in the management and preoperative counseling of patients undergoing THA and TKA revision surgery for a periprosthetic fracture to optimize the outcomes for these patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, case-control retrospective analysis.

Comparison of locking compression plate and distal femoral replacement for periprosthetic distal femoral fractures: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical outcomes of locking compression plate (LCP) and distal femoral replacement (DFR) for periprosthetic distal femoral fractures (PDFFs) after total knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

This retrospective study identified patients with PDFFs in an institutional database between January 2012 and December 2021. Demographic data and clinical outcomes, including postoperative complications, reoperation, 1-year mortality, Knee Society Scores (KSS) and Knee Society Functional Score (KSFS) were analysed.

RESULTS

In total, 12 patients treated with LCP and six patients treated with DFR were included. There was no significant difference between the LCP and DFR groups in terms of postoperative complications (25.0% versus 33.3%, respectively), reoperation (8.3% versus 0.0%), respectively, 1-year mortality (8.3% versus 16.7%, respectively) or mean ± SD KSS (80.3 ± 8.3 versus 78.0 ± 2.5, respectively). However, the mean ± SD KSFS was significantly better for patients with LCP than for those with DFR (51.8 ± 12.5 versus 37.0 ± 6.7, respectively).

CONCLUSION

DFR provides similar clinical outcomes compared with LCP for PDFFs. Patients with advanced age may benefit from DFR to allow early weight bearing.

Distal femoral replacement or internal fixation for management of periprosthetic distal femur fractures: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The number of periprosthetic fractures above a total knee arthroplasty continues to increase. These fractures are associated with a high risk of morbidity and mortality. Techniques for addressing these fractures include open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and revision arthroplasty, including distal femoral replacement (DFR). The primary aim of this review is to compare mortality and reoperation rates between ORIF and DFR when used to treat periprosthetic distal femur fractures.

METHODS

A systematic review including MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases was completed from inception to April 10, 2021. Studies including a comparator cohort were meta-analyzed.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were identified for inclusion, of which, five had sufficient homogeneity for inclusion in a meta-analysis. 30-day and 2-year mortality was 4.1% and 14.6% in the DFR group. There was no statistically significant difference between ORIF and DFR (log Odds-Ratio (OR) = -0.14, 95 %CI: -0.77 to 0.50). The reoperation rate in the DFR group was 9.3% versus 14.8% for ORIF, with no difference between groups (log OR = 0.10, 95 %CI: -0.59 to 0.79). There was no difference in rates of deep infection (log OR = 0.22, 95 %CI: -0.83 to 1.28). Direct comparison of functional outcomes was not possible, though did not appear significant.

CONCLUSION

DFR in the setting of periprosthetic distal femur fractures is equivalent to ORIF with respect to mortality and reoperation rate and thus a safe and reliable treatment strategy. DFR may be more reliable in complex fracture patterns where the ability to obtain adequate fixation is difficult.

Distal Femoral Replacement for Periprosthetic Fractures After TKA: Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry Review

BACKGROUND

Distal femoral replacement (DFR) is a potential treatment option following periprosthetic fracture (PPF) of a total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, there is limited literature regarding implant survivorship and complication rates. The aim of this study was to examine patient demographics and trends in usage, implant survivorship and modes of failure, and patient mortality following DFR for PPF captured by a national joint replacement registry.

METHODS

A retrospective registry review was performed using data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). In total, 306 DFR were performed for PPF of a known primary TKA. Eighty-five percent of patients were female, and the mean age was 76.4 years. Kaplan-Meier estimates of implant and patient survivorship were performed.

RESULTS

The number of DFR performed for PPF has doubled over the past five years. The cumulative percent second revision rate at six years was 12%. The most common indications for revision were infection (37%) and aseptic loosening (33%). Patient survivorship after DFR was 97% and 83% at five and ten years, respectively.

CONCLUSION

A national registry review has identified the increasing prevalence of DFR for PPF after primary TKA and demonstrated implant survivorship of 88% at midterm follow-up. Surgeons may consider DFR as an acceptable and durable treatment option.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III - Case Series.

Cost-effectiveness of fixation versus arthroplasty for geriatric distal femur fractures

INTRODUCTION

Geriatric distal femur fractures are challenging to treat. The high mortality rate associated with a loss of mobility in this population has led some authors to compare distal femur fractures to femoral neck fractures with respect to the importance of rapidly regaining mobility in the geriatric population. Acute distal femur replacement has been advocated by some as a preferred treatment over internal fixation because arthroplasty may facilitate a more rapid return to a patient's baseline mobility level. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature on the costs and outcomes of fixation and arthroplasty in the geriatric distal femur fracture population and to employ decision modeling techniques to generate evidence-based treatment recommendations.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of clinical studies published since 2000 was conducted to synthesize the available data on outcomes, reoperation rates, and mortality rates after fixation or arthroplasty for distal femur fractures in patients with an average age greater than 70 years. A Markov decision analysis model was created. Costs, health state utilities, reoperation rates, and mortality rates were derived from the systematic literature review and publicly available data. The model was analyzed via probabilistic statistical analysis as well as sensitivity analyses with a willingness-to-pay threshold set at $100,000 per QALY and a 5-year time horizon.

RESULTS

From a US societal perspective, fixation was associated with a greater quality of life benefit (2.44 QALYs vs. 2.34 QALYs) and lower cost ($25,556 vs. $65,536) compared with distal femur replacement for geriatric distal femur fractures. Probabilistic analysis demonstrated that 82 in 100 model outcomes favored fixation over arthroplasty and 18 in 100 model outcomes favored distal femur replacement. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that this result was robust to small deviations in the cost and functional outcome variables in the model.

CONCLUSION

Compared to distal femur replacement, ORIF is likely to be a more cost-effective treatment for distal femur fractures in the geriatric patient population, though this recommendation is tempered by the relatively low quality of evidence available on the comparative functional outcomes of these treatments.

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

OBJECTIVE

To compare complications and functional outcomes of treatment with primary distal femoral replacement (DFR) versus open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for English language studies up to May 19, 2020, identifying 913 studies.

STUDY SELECTION

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.

DATA EXTRACTION

Study quality was assessed using previously reported criteria. There were 40 Level IV studies, 17 Level III studies, and 1 Level II study.

DATA SYNTHESIS

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)].

CONCLUSIONS

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.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Distal Femoral Replacement as a Primary Treatment Method for Distal Femoral Fractures in the Elderly

Distal femoral fractures account for 3-6% of all femoral fractures with a similar demographic as patients suffering from proximal femoral fractures. The mortality risk can be high in such injuries, which has prompted NHS England to extend the scope of the Best Practice Tariff to include all fragility fractures of the femur. Poor bone quality, intra-articular extension, and significant comminution can make these fractures difficult to manage with fixation techniques, while early mobilisation is a key outcome in the treatment of this injury. In this study, a comprehensive literature search was performed based on keywords, and abstracts were reviewed to identify relevant articles. The following factors were analysed: time to surgery, time to full weight-bearing, the average hospital stay, post-operative mobility status, and complications. A total of 233 abstracts were identified using the pre-determined search criteria, and, subsequently, articles were excluded following author review. A total of 10 relevant articles were included in this review, with five used for review and comparison between distal femoral replacement (DFR) and fixation. This resulted in a sample of 200 patients treated with DFR with over 87% ambulatory at follow-up and a re-operation rate of 13.3% compared to 78% and 13.5%, respectively, in those treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) procedure. Despite a limited pool of evidence, the literature suggests that DFR offers an option that potentially allows immediate weight-bearing and leaves most patients ambulatory at follow-up. Although DFR is more costly than other operative techniques, it avoids complications associated with fixation such as non-union and can reduce the risk of further surgery through direct complications or a need for delayed arthroplasty, which is deemed more complex secondary to fixation. Early mobilisation is a key step in reducing morbidity and mortality among this cohort of patients, and a procedure such as DFR should be more widely considered to help achieve this outcome.

Treatment of B1 Distal Periprosthetic Femur Fractures

The burden of periprosthetic distal femoral fractures is projected to increase accordingly with the increase in total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) performed globally in the future. Less invasive plating and intramedullary (IM) nailing techniques still seem to provide similar outcomes based on current literature. Double-plating and combination techniques may prove to be beneficial in the future pending further large-scale studies but currently have not demonstrated superiority over single plating and IM nailing based on current evidence. Distal femoral replacement may provide a useful option for future treatment, provided it is performed by a trained knee arthroplasty surgeon.

Clinical Outcome After Replacement of Distal Femur/Proximal Tibia in a Heterogeneous Patient Cohort: Function Following Tumour, Trauma, and Loosening

BACKGROUND

Distal femur and proximal tibia replacements as limb-salvage procedures with good outcome parameters for patients with tumours have been broadly described. However, the overall midterm outcome in a mixed, heterogeneous patient collective is still unclear.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analysed 59 consecutive patients (33 for primary and 26 for revision surgery) between 1998 and 2017. Indication for implantation was tumour (n=16), periprosthetic fracture (n=14), traumatic fracture (n=14), infection (n=10), aseptic loosening (n=3), and pathological fracture (n=2). The mean follow-up duration was 3 years. Clinical functions were evaluated by Toronto Extremity Salvage Score and Knee Society Score. Knee extension and flexion force were measured.

RESULTS

The overall survival rate of arthroplasties was 59% (n=35). Major complications were observed in 36 (61%) patients. During the follow-up period, 14 (24%) patients died. We recorded periprosthetic joint infection in 21 (36%) patients, recurrence of tumour in two (3%), and aseptic implant failure in three (5%). The mean Toronto Extremity Salvage Score was 66±33, and the mean Knee Society Score was 49±30. The mean extension force on the operated side was significantly reduced at 60° and 180° compared to the healthy side (p=0.0151 and p=0.0411, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Distal femur and proximal tibia replacements showed limited clinical function in a heterogeneous patient collective. Indication for implantation should be considered carefully.

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

BACKGROUND

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).

METHODS

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 30 months (range 6-96 months). 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.

RESULTS

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]).

CONCLUSIONS

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.

The Treatment of Periprosthetic Distal Femoral Fractures After Total Knee Replacement: A Critical Analysis Review

Periprosthetic distal femoral fracture after total knee arthroplasty carries substantial morbidity and mortality regardless of fixation technique. Surgical treatment is favored in most patients compared with conservative therapy because of high rates of nonunion, malunion, and reoperation after casting or bracing. Internal fixation techniques including retrograde intramedullary nailing and locked plating are favored for surgical treatment in most fractures when bone stock in the distal fragment allows for appropriate fixation. In the setting of deficient distal femoral bone stock or femoral component loosening, revision arthroplasty with distal femoral replacement is the favored technique. Further studies with regard to the use of intramedullary nailing, locked plating, and distal femoral replacement are necessary to refine the indications for each technique and to define the use of combinations of these fixation techniques.

The Old Supracondylar Fracture of Femur Treated by Gradual Deformity Correction Using the Ilizarov Technique Followed by the Second-Stage Internal Fixation in an Elderly Patient With Osteoporosis

Background:

The supracondylar nonunion of femur in elderly individuals is rare and challenging to manage. Nothing in English literatures or guidelines is available regarding this particular fracture characterized by osteoporosis, soft-tissue contracture, shortening, and joint stiffness. We report a case of an elderly patient with a supracondylar nonunion of the femur, which was successfully treated using staged Ilizarov techniques and dual plating.

Case Presentation:

An 84-year-old female patient was admitted to our orthopedic department for her pain and soft-tissue swelling around the right knee with claudication and shortening deformity of the affected extremity. She denied any specific history of trauma and had sought traditional Chinese medical attention for 6 months before she presented to our hospital. Diagnosis of the right femoral supracondylar nonunion was made based on the X-ray and computed tomography. Ilizarov external fixator was carried out for successive and slow distraction and gradual correction of the shortening deformity, in consideration of the nonunion was still present. Subsequently, internal fixation with dual plating of the distal femur was performed. Excellent function and patient satisfaction were observed at 6 months of follow-up.

Conclusion:

The protocol of Ilizarov technique with subsequent internal fixation of dual plating seems to be an efficient solution to the supracondylar nonunion of femur in elderly patients with osteoporosis. The advantage of the protocol is that it allows knee joint motion, avoids neurovascular complications, and gentle correction of soft-tissue contractures.

Equivalent union rates between intramedullary nail and locked plate fixation for distal femur periprosthetic fractures - a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The incidence of periprosthetic fracture following total knee arthroplasty continues to rise as the number of knee arthroplasty procedures increases. Management of periprosthetic fractures can be complex, with locked compression plating (LCP) and intramedullary nailing (IMN) being the most commonly used treatment options. We performed a systematic review to report and compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients treated with intramedullary nail fixation versus plate fixation for periprosthetic fractures of the distal femur.

METHODS

Several databases were screened. Studies evaluating intramedullary nail fixation or locked plate fixation for distal femur periprosthetic fractures were included. Primary and secondary variables as mentioned below, when included, were analyzed and compared.

RESULTS

One prospective comparative study, 9 retrospective comparative studies, and 28 retrospective case series with 1,188 patients were included in this review. No statistically significant differences were found between IMN and LCP when analyzing union rate or time to union. Plating demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in the overall complication rate and reoperation rate when compared with IMN (p<0.003). IMN demonstrated a slightly higher percentage of patients reaching full weight bearing status and a quicker time to full weight bearing (100% and 7.6 weeks) when compared to plating (94% and 15.8 weeks). A higher percentage of patients treated with IMN returned to preinjury activity when compared to those treated with plating (70.8% vs. 61.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Both intramedullary nail and locked plate fixation offer unique benefits in terms of clinical and radiographic outcomes for treatment of periprosthetic distal femur fractures after total knee arthroplasty. While the standard of care remains controversial, an increase in the recent literature has allowed for better clarification of the significant clinicoradiologic advantages and disadvantages of both popular treatment options.

An Unusual Complication after Infected Total Knee Arthroplasty

One-stage or two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in periprosthetic joint infections has been at the center of scientific debate for many years. As regards two-stage revision TKA, cement spacers have a good infection control rate with successful results reportable up to 96%, though some studies describe related spacer complications such as stiffness and loss of bone stock. We report a case of a fracture close to the antibiotic-loaded cement spacer in a 74-year-old female patient. Due to the blood tests and high risk of infection, we performed a hybrid external fixator. Six months after the surgery, X-rays did not show signs of fracture consolidation and nonunion was considered as an impending complication; therefore, the decision was made to perform tumor-like total knee arthroplasty. The postoperative evolution was satisfactory and return to daily activity without pain. At the 5-year follow-up, the patient showed a good score of 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and a range of motion from 0 to 90° without pain. The X-rays did not show signs of mobilization, dislocation, recurrence of infection, or other complications.

Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes of Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures Treated With Open Reduction Internal Fixation

OBJECTIVES

To report outcomes and complications of periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PPDFF) treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) using a plate construct, with or without endosteal augmentation.

DESIGN

Retrospective Case Series.

SETTING

One Level I trauma center and one tertiary care hospital.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS

Forty patients with PPDFFs, treated by 3 surgeons, were identified using an institutional trauma registry. Thirty-two patients with 12 months of clinical and radiographic follow-up were included, and 8 patients were lost to follow-up before 12 months.

INTERVENTION

All patients underwent ORIF of the PPDFF with lateral locked plating, and 11 received additional endosteal augmentation using allograft fibula.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were available for the final follow-up. Ninety-four percent of patients achieved union at an average of 6.5 months postoperatively. Twenty-one percent of patients underwent subsequent surgery, with more than half of those being for removal of implants. Anatomic limb alignment was achieved in all cases (no malunions). Almost half of the patients required assistive devices for ambulation in the long term.

CONCLUSIONS

ORIF of PPDFF with direct visualization using periarticular locking plates ± endosteal strut allograft resulted in a 94% union rate and no deep infections. There was no difference in outcomes between groups treated with or without additional endosteal fibular allograft. However, these are catastrophic injuries in frail patients, and 20% of patients either died or were lost to follow-up, and almost half required an assistive device for ambulation after surgery despite restoration of limb alignment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Equivalent mortality and complication rates following periprosthetic distal femur fractures managed with either lateral locked plating or a distal femoral replacement

INTRODUCTION

Management of distal femur fractures above total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains challenging. Two common surgical options are locked lateral plating (LLP) and distal femoral arthroplasty (DFR). Unfortunately, approximately 30-50% of patients may die within one year of injury, require further surgery, or not regain prior mobility performance. We compared 87 LLP to 53 DFR patients - to our knowledge the largest comparative study - focusing on 90- and 365-day mortality, mobility maintenance, and further surgery.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients at least 55 years old who sustained femur fractures near a primary TKA (essentially OTA-33 or Su types 1, 2, or 3) from 2000 to 2015 assigning cohort based on treatment: LLP or DFR. We excluded patients having prior care for the injury, whose surgery was not for fracture (e.g. loosening), or having other surgical intervention (e.g. intramedullary nail).

RESULTS

Results Cohorts were similar based on body mass index and age adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (aaCCI). LLP was more common than DFR for fractures above and at the level of the implant, but similar for fractures within the implant for patients with aaCCI ≥ 5. LLP and DFR had similar mortality at 90 days (9% vs 4%) and 365 days (22% vs 10%), need for additional surgery (9% vs 3%), and survivors maintaining ambulation (77% vs 81%). Patients whose surgery occurred 3 or more days after presentation had similar mortality risk to those whose surgery was before 3days. The mean age of one year survivors was 77 whereas for patients who died it was 85. Neither surgical choice nor aaCCI was associated with increased risk in time to surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Fracture location, remaining bone stock, and patient's prior mobility and current comorbidities must guide treatment. Our study suggests that 90- and 365-day mortality, final mobility, and re-operation rate are not statistically different with LLP vs DFR management.

Predictors of Functional Recovery Following Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for periprosthetic distal femur fractures include open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and distal femoral replacement (DFR). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the complications, and functional recovery (ambulatory status, living situation, mortality) in patients undergoing operative treatment (DFR and ORIF) of periprosthetic distal femur fractures.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 58 patients with distal femoral periprosthetic fractures treated with either ORIF or DFR was conducted. Surgical complications, discharge disposition, ambulatory status, living situation at 1 year, and mortality at 1 year were compared between patients treated with ORIF and DFR. Outcomes at 1 year were also compared between patients older and younger than 85 years of age.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients with a mean age of 80 years (range, 61-95 years) met inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up was 29.5 months (range, 5-81 months). Patients undergoing DFR were significantly older than those who underwent ORIF (83 vs 78, P < .01). The 1-year mortality rate was 20.6%. There was no difference between groups with respect to mortality, complications, discharge disposition, or ambulatory status and living situation at 1 year. Patients who lost the ability to ambulate at 1 year were significantly older than patients who maintained the ability to ambulate (87.5 vs 76.4 years, P < .05). Patients older than 85 years were more likely to lose the ability to ambulate and to live in a skilled nursing facility at 1 year (P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Distal femoral periprosthetic fractures have a high morbidity and mortality. Age at time of injury, not treatment rendered, is predictive of ambulatory status and living independence after periprosthetic distal femur fractures.

Periprosthetic fractures: epidemiology and current treatment

Periprosthetic fractures are becoming increasingly frequent due to aging population and growing number of total joint replacements involving joints different from hip and knee, such as shoulder and elbow. The treatment of these fractures still represents one of the major challenges for the orthopedic surgeon. Despite all efforts to understand and treat these patients, high rate of failure and mortality are still reported. In this review, the epidemiology of periprosthetic fractures, risk factors and results of surgical treatment are disclosed. Moreover, we propose a treatment algorithm based on the findings of the New Unified Classification System.