Total knee arthroplasty with distal femoral replacement is associated with an important complication rate. A case series

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.

Short-term outcomes of periprosthetic compared to native distal femur fractures, a national database study

BACKGROUND

Distal femur fractures (DFFx) are highly morbid injuries with a complication rate comparable to hip fractures. Rising rates of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have led to increasing rates of periprosthetic DFFx (pDFFx). We sought to determine how pDFFx complication rates differed from native DFFx (nDFFx).

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) was used to identify patients who sustained pDFFx or nDFFx between 2012 and 2018. Patients were further stratified by operative treatment: open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) or distal femur replacement (DFR). Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare 30-day complication rates between pDFFx versus nDFFx and, among pDFFx patients, ORIF versus DFR or revision TKA (rTKA).

RESULTS

563 patients with pDFFx and 2259 patients with nDFFx were identified between 2012 and 2018. pDFFx patients had significantly lower rates of ORIF than nDFFx patients (36.4 vs 95.4%, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, pDFFx were associated with a higher rate of surgical site complications (OR 2.48, p = 0.009) compared to nDFFx. There were no differences in mortality, reoperations, major complications, rate of blood transfusion, venous thromboembolism and disposition. In patients with pDFFx, patients undergoing DFR/rTKA were more likely to be discharged home versus a rehab facility, compared to those undergoing ORIF (OR 2.62, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this first large registry study comparing pDFFx and nDFFx, we find similar outcomes between these groups in the first 30 days after surgery. Patients with pDFFx did have higher rates of surgical site complications, including infection and dehiscence. In pDFFx patients, those undergoing DFR were more likely to return home post-operatively.

Patient safety in distal femoral resection knee arthroplasty for non-tumor indications: a single-center consecutive cohort study of 45 patients

BACKGROUND

Distal femoral resection knee arthroplasty may be a viable option for several indications other than bone tumors. Resection knee arthroplasty appears to be becoming more common, but patients requiring this type of surgery are often elderly and with high comorbidity. The aim of this study was to report in-hospital complications, readmissions, reoperations, and mortality after distal femoral resection knee arthroplasty for non-tumor indications.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified a consecutive cohort of 45 knees (45 patients) treated with distal femoral resection knee arthroplasty in a single institution between 2012 and 2021. Indications for surgery were failure of osteosynthesis (8), primary fracture treatment (2), periprosthetic fracture (22), and revision arthroplasty with severe bone loss (13). A major reoperation was defined as a major component exchange procedure or amputation. Mean follow-up was 3.9 years.

RESULTS

The mean age was 71.3 years (SD 12.3), and 64.4% were female; 8.9% were ASA I, 40% ASA II, and 51% ASA III. Median length of stay was 7 days (range 3-19) with no major in-hospital complications, but 55.6% (n = 25) required blood transfusion. The 90-day readmission rate was 17.8% (n = 8), of which 50% was prosthesis-related. Four patients (8.9%) underwent major reoperation due to infection (n = 2), mechanical failure (n = 1), or periprosthetic fracture (n = 1). The mortality rate was 0% ≤ 90 days and 2.2% ≤1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

Distal femoral resection knee arthroplasty in this fragile patient population appears to be a viable and safe option considering that it is a limp salvage procedure most cases.

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.

A prospective study on outcome of patient-specific cones in revision knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Cones are known to be good substitutes for metaphyseal and diaphyseal bone loss during revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). Often the off-the-shelf cones do not fit to the individual patient's anatomy. New 3D-printing additive technologies allow to develop patient-specific cones. The aim of this prospective study was to describe their outcome.

METHODS

From 2017 until 2020, 35 patient-specific titanium cones (15 femoral and 20 tibial) were implanted during 31 RTKAs (45% varus-valgus constrained implants and 55% rotating hinges). Clinical outcome was evaluated using KSS, WOMAC and FJS-12 scoring systems at 12 and 24 months. No patients were lost for follow-up.

RESULTS

In all cases, there were no technical difficulties in adapting the cones to both the host bone and the revision implant. By the time of performing data analysis (January 2021), none of the 31 patients needed revision surgery for any reason. At 12 months of follow-up, the mean values of scores for knee function improved significantly from baseline (p < 0.01): KSS-103.00 (min 100-max 111, SD 5.35), WOMAC-16.5 (min 9-max 24, SD 6.45), FJS-12-61.60 (min 52-max 76, SD 9.20). At 24 months, the trend towards improvement of functional results continued but did not reached statistical significance comparing to 12 months: KSS was 105.92 (min 95-max 155, SD 16.18), WOMAC-14.07 (min 0-max 42, SD 12.42), FJS-12-83.78 (min 65-max 97, SD 09.64). Radiographic signs of osteointegration were detected within the first 6 month after surgery in all cases. Loosening of femoral or tibial components as well as peri-prosthetic infection was not observed in any of the patients during the follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The original additive technology for designing and producing patient-specific metaphyseal and diaphyseal cones with different porosity zones for extensive femoral and tibial bone defects in RTKA is precise and clinically effective solution, at least in the short term. It could be a valid alternative to "off-the-shelf" cones or sleeves as well as structural allografts and even mega-prosthesis, but a longer follow-up period is required to assess its medium- and long-term reliability.

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.

Fibrin-Associated Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma Found on Revision Arthroplasty of the Knee

Fibrin-associated diffuse large B cell lymphoma (FA-DLBCL) is a rare Epstein-Barr viruspositive B cell lymphoma that is nonmass-forming, does not directly produce symptoms, and is incidentally discovered on histological examination of tissues excised for other reasons. Despite overlap in morphologic and immunophenotypic features with aggressive B cell neoplasms, FA-DLBCL shows an excellent clinical outcome, even with surgical excision alone. We report an extremely rare occurrence of FA-DLBCL found in association with a metallic implant on revision arthroplasty of the knee. This report also illustrates the need for an integrated multidisciplinary approach for accurate diagnosis and avoidance of overtreatment.

Contemporary Distal Femoral Replacements for Supracondylar Femoral Fractures Around Primary and Revision Total Knee Arthroplasties

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data on the outcomes of distal femoral replacements (DFRs) in patients with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) periprosthetic fractures. We sought to characterize these patients' survivorship free from rerevision.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 49 patients, including 34 after primary TKA (primary cohort), 9 after revision TKA, and 6 conversions for failed open reduction and internal fixation (revision cohort) that underwent DFR for a periprosthetic femur fracture. The mean age was 76 years, and 40 patients (82%) were female. The mean follow-up was 4 years. Femoral fixation included 44 cemented stems (90%) and 5 cementless stems (10%). Survivorship free from rerevision was characterized by the Kaplan-Meier method; cox proportional regression was used to analyze the risk factors for rerevision.

RESULTS

Survivorship free from any rerevision at 5 years in the primary and revision cohort was 93% and 18%, respectively. The revision cohort had a 5.3× higher risk of re-revision (P = .008). Survivorship free from re-revision for aseptic loosening at 5 years in the primary and revision cohort was 93% and 53%, respectively. Two of the 3 patients with cementless stems in the primary cohort underwent early rerevision for aseptic loosening, but patients with prior primary TKAs treated with cemented femoral fixation (n = 31) had a 97% 5-year survivorship free from re-revision.

CONCLUSION

Patients with periprosthetic fractures around prior primary TKAs treated with DFRs with cemented femoral fixation had a 97% 5-year survivorship free from any re-revision. DFRs for periprosthetic femur fractures around revision TKAs or conversions of failed open reduction and internal fixations have a 5× increased risk of rerevision.