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

Femoral component retention in Rorabeck type III periprosthetic knee fracture with plating fixation and bone cement augmentation. A new surgical technique and four cases reported

Although dual implant constructs have recently been explored with promising results in very distal periprosthetic femur fractures (PPKF), the gold standard treatment of Rorabeck and Taylor type III PPKF remains a distal femur replacement or a highly constrained rotating hinge implant. However, this surgery is very aggressive and expensive for functionally low-demanding elderly patients. A new surgical technique using locking plates with polymethyl methacrylate cement augmentation is described to retain the femoral component avoiding its replacement. Four patients were treated and followed up for more than one year postoperative without any complications, their femoral component was retained without any loosening and the mobility in the Barthel Index remained unchanged.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Range of Motion Following Knee Arthroplasty Using a Megaprosthesis in Non-Oncological Patients: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

This review aimed to determine outcomes following megaprostheses in non-oncological indications for knee arthroplasty, including range of motion (ROM) and patient-reported outcome measures of function, pain, and quality of life (QoL).

METHODS

A search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane via Ovid and PubMed between January 2003 and June 2023 was conducted. Studies reporting function, pain, ROM, and/or QoL in non-oncological patients who have received knee megaprostheses were included. Studies with sample sizes (n ≤ 5) were excluded. The risk of bias was assessed using the Downs and Black Quality Checklist for Health Care Intervention Studies. Central tendency measures (mean or median) were reported at each time point, and dispersion measures were extracted and reported whenever data were available.

RESULTS

A total of 30 studies (involving 1,294 megaprostheses) were included. Of which, 14 of 30 studies reviewed patients who had mixed indications; 14 of 30 looked at fracture only; 1 of 30 focused on distal femur nonunion; and 1 of 30 focused on patients who had periprosthetic infections. The average patient follow-up time was 40.1 months (range, 1.0 to 93.5). Most studies presented a high risk of bias (27 of 30), while a few (3 of 30) presented a low risk of bias. Improvements from preoperative baseline were observed in 85.7% of studies that reported baseline and follow-up data for function (12 of 14), 100.0% pain (4 of 4), 90.9% ROM (10 of 11), and 66.6% QoL (2 of 3).

CONCLUSIONS

Favorable function, pain, ROM, and QoL outcomes following knee megaprostheses in non-oncological patients were observed. Heterogeneity in outcome measures and follow-up periods prevented the pooling of data. Future comparative studies are warranted to enhance the body of evidence relating to knee megaprostheses in non-oncological patients.

Characteristics and Epidemiology of Megaprostheses Infections: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Megaprostheses were first employed in oncological orthopedic surgery, but more recently, additional applications have arisen. These implants are not without any risks and device failure is quite frequent. The most feared complication is undoubtedly the implants' infection; however, the exact incidence is still unknown. This systematic review aims to estimate in the current literature the overall incidence of megaprosthesis infections and to investigate possible risk/protective factors.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search for studies published from July 1971 to December 2023 using specific keywords. To be included, studies needed to report either the megaprosthesis anatomical site, and/or whether the megaprosthesis was coated, and/or the surgical indication as oncological or non-oncological reasons.

RESULTS

The initial literature search resulted in 1281 studies. We evaluated 10,456 patients and the overall infection rate was 12%. In cancer patients, the infection rate was 22%, while in non-oncological patients, this was 16% (trauma 12%, mechanical failure 17%, prosthetic joint infections 26%). The overall infection rates comparing coated and uncoated implants were 10% and 12.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of megaprosthesis implants is increasing considerably. In traumatological patients, the infection rate is lower compared to all the other subgroups, while the infection rate remains higher in the cancer patient group. As these devices become more common, focused studies exploring epidemiological data, clinical outcomes, and long-term complications are needed to address the uncertainties in prevention and management.

[High revision rates and mortality after treatment of periprosthetic distal femur fractures with a distal femur replacement : An analysis from the EPRD]

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic distal femoral fractures (PDFF) are challenging injuries, as mostly geriatric patients with serious comorbidities are affected. Revision to a distal femoral replacement (DFR) is often the best option in very distal fractures, poor bone stock and/or loose total knee replacement. Data on outcome after these surgeries is limited.

OBJECTIVES

This study was initiated to analyze the outcome after distal femoral replacement for periprosthetic distal femoral fractures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data of the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD) were analyzed. From a total of 43,945 revision knee replacement surgeries in the registry, 629 patients could be identified with a PDFF in which a DFR was used for revision. The mean age was 79.1 years, and 84.1% were female. Revisions and mortality were analyzed and compared with patient groups with a similar procedure (revision total knee arthroplasty) or similar general condition (fracture hip replacement). To make the groups more comparable, matched-pair-analyses were performed that included age, gender, BMI and comorbidities as matching parameters.

RESULTS

Within 1 year after surgery 17.1% of the patients died and 10.4% were revised. Within 4 years 35.5% died and 22.3% were revised. Revision rates were lower in elective knee revisions (1 year 6.0%, 4 years 16.8%). Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) accounted for 50% of all revisions, resulting a PJI rate of 7.3%. Mortality after DFR was similarly high as after fracture hip arthroplasty.

CONCLUSION

After DFR for PDFF every third patient died, and every fifth patient needed revision within 4 years after surgery, which demonstrates the severity of this injury. Efforts should be undertaken to provide optimal treatment to these high-risk patients to reduce unfavorable outcomes. Surgeries should be well prepared and performed as early as possible in hospitals with adequate experience.

High revision rates and mortality after distal femoral replacement for periprosthetic distal femoral fractures: analysis from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD)

PURPOSE

This study was initiated to analyze the outcome after distal femoral replacement (DFR) for periprosthetic distal femoral fractures (PDFF).

METHODS

Data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD) were analyzed. A total of 626 patients could be identified with a DFR for PDFF. Mean age was 78.8 years, and 84.2% were female. Revisions and mortality were analyzed and compared with patient groups with a similar procedure (revision total knee arthroplasty) or similar general condition (fracture total hip arthroplasty, hip hemiarthroplasty). Matched-pair-analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Within one year after surgery, 13.2% of the patients had died and further 9.4% were revised. Within four years, 32.7% had died and 19.7% were revised. Revisions were nearly twice as high as in the comparison groups. Periprosthetic infection (PJI) was the most frequent cause for revision, resulting in a PJI rate of 12.8%, which was lower in the comparison groups. Mortality after DFR was as similar high as after fracture hip arthroplasty.

CONCLUSION

PDFF are a serious injury, and the necessary surgical treatment has a high risk of complications. Every third patient after DFR for PDFF had died and every fifth patient needed revision within 4 years after surgery. Efforts should be undertaken to provide optimal treatment to these high-risk patients to reduce unfavorable outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

REGISTRATION OF CLINICAL TRIALS

As this is a registry-derived study of data of the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD), no registration was performed.

Periprosthetic Fractures After a Total Knee Arthroplasty

As the number of total knee arthroplasties performed continues to increase, complications such as postoperative periprosthetic fractures are becoming increasingly more common. Femoral periprosthetic fractures are the most common type of fractures around a total knee arthroplasty, whereas tibial and patellar periprosthetic fractures are infrequent. Treatment principles depend on the bone the fracture is located, the status of the implant fixation, bone stock, and the type of implants available. The Vancouver classification allows for a standardized system to describe and manage these injuries, incorporating these factors. A systematic approach is vital in obtaining the best possible outcomes because complications and mortality rates mimic those of hip fractures.

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.

Double Plating Fixation vs Distal Femoral Replacement in the Management of Distal Femoral Fractures in Geriatric Patients

Background

Distal femur fractures are considered challenging to manage, particularly in geriatric patients. Double plating (DP) is a technique that helps with earlier rehabilitation and return to preinjury level of activity. Distal femoral replacement (DFR) is an alternative technique in the management of these fractures that may help to solve problems like associated knee osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, and severely comminuted condyles. The current study compares the functional and radiological outcomes of DFR and DP in the management of these fractures among geriatric patients.

Methods

This randomized, comparative, interventional study was performed at a university hospital. A total of 30 patients who underwent DFR or DP after distal femur fractures (AO/OTA 33 A3, 33 C) were analyzed. The primary outcome was Knee Society Score (KSS), whereas secondary outcomes included postoperative complications rate, knee range of motion, reoperation rate, and operative time.

Results

No significant difference was observed between DFR and DP except for the knee component of the KSS at a 12-month interval (P = .03) and knee range of motion at a 12-month interval (P = .001), both of which were in favor of DP. No significant difference in postoperative complications (P = .06), reoperation rate (P = 1.00), or operative time (P = .06) was noted.

Conclusions

DFR and DP had comparable functional (KSS) and radiological outcomes with no significant difference in postoperative complications, reoperation rate, or operative time.

First-time revision knee arthroplasty using a hinged prosthesis : temporal trends, indications, and risk factors associated with re-revision using data from the National Joint Registry for 3,855 patients

AIMS

The aim of this study was to identify variables associated with time to revision, demographic details associated with revision indication, and type of prosthesis employed, and to describe the survival of hinge knee arthroplasty (HKA) when used for first-time knee revision surgery and factors that were associated with re-revision.

METHODS

Patient demographic details, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, indication for revision, surgical approach, surgeon grade, implant type (fixed and rotating), time of revision from primary implantation, and re-revision if undertaken were obtained from the National Joint Registry data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man over an 18-year period (2003 to 2021).

RESULTS

There were 3,855 patient episodes analyzed with a median age of 73 years (interquartile range (IQR) 66 to 80), and the majority were female (n = 2,480, 64.3%). The median time to revision from primary knee arthroplasty was 1,219 days (IQR 579 to 2,422). Younger age (p < 0.001), decreasing ASA grade (p < 0.001), and indications for revision of sepsis (p < 0.001), unexplained pain (p < 0.001), non-polyethylene wear (p < 0.001), and malalignment (p < 0.001) were all associated with an earlier time to revision from primary implantation. The median follow-up was 4.56 years (range 0.00 to 17.52), during which there were 410 re-revisions. The overall unadjusted probability of re-revision for all revision HKAs at one, five, and ten years after surgery were 2.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 3.3), 10.7% (95% CI 9.6 to 11.9), and 16.2% (95% CI 14.5 to 17.9), respectively. Male sex (p < 0.001), younger age (p < 0.001), revision for septic indications (p < 0.001) or implant fracture (p = 0.010), a fixed hinge (p < 0.001), or surgery performed by a non-consultant grade (p = 0.023) were independently associated with an increased risk of re-revision.

CONCLUSION

There were several factors associated with time to first revision. The re-revision rate was 16.2% at ten years; however, the risk factors associated with an increased risk of re-revision could be used to counsel patients regarding their outcome.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):47-55.

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.