Comparison of outcomes and analysis of risk factors for non-union in locked plating of closed periprosthetic and non-periprosthetic distal femoral fractures in a retrospective cohort study

Periprosthetic proximal humerus fractures require an individualized treatment approach-results of a multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND

In the last years, there has been increasing use of shoulder arthroplasty. As a result, an increasing incidence of periprosthetic humerus fractures (PPHF) is expected. Therefore, this retrospective, multicenter analysis aimed to collect demographic data from patients with PPHF, their treatment strategies, and associated complications.

METHODS

Demographics of patients with PPHF were collected retrospectively from the database of six trauma hospitals between January 2000 and December 2020. All fractures were categorized according to the Wright and Cofield, and Worland classifications. In addition, the type of treatment for PPHF, as well as subsequent complications, were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 72 patients with a PPHF were identified. The mean age of the 55 female and 17 male patients was 77 years. PPHF occurred a mean of 50 months after primary arthroplasty implantation, almost exclusively as a result of a fall from standing height (n = 67). In-situ implant was a RTSA in 40 patients and a hemiarthroplasty in 32 patients. More than half of the fractures (n = 38) were type B fractures, according to Wright and Cofield. According to Worland, the majority of patients also had a type B fracture (type B1 (n = 22), type B2 (n = 28), type B3 (n = 10)). Associated comorbidities were found in 21 patients. A total of 31 patients were treated non-operatively, 27 with Open Reduction Internal Fixation (ORIF), and 14 with a revision arthroplasty. Nine primary radial nerve palsies were found (pre-operatively), and seven secondarily (post-operatively). Nine patients suffered from non-union (ORIF 4, non operative 4, stem replacement 1).

CONCLUSION

The treatment strategy for PPHF is primarily tailored to the individual patient. Decisive factors such as patient's age, fracture type, and primary palsies have to be considered for optimal treatment. In type B1 fractures, there is a recommendation for ORIF because of high non-union rates under non-operative treatment. In contrast, in type B2 fractures, a non-operative approach should be preferred, provided there are no radial nerve lesions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, epidemiologic study.

Surgical management and weight-bearing recommendations for geriatric distal femur fractures

Objective

To investigate current practices among orthopaedic trauma surgeons in treating geriatric distal femur fractures and evaluate current postoperative weight-bearing recommendations.

Methods

A 26-question survey was emailed to Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium surgeon members to characterize current practice with different fixation methods for distal femur fractures and the surgeon-directed postoperative weight-bearing recommendations for each approach.

Results

Surveys were completed by 123 orthopaedic trauma surgeons with a response rate of 37% (123/332). Retrograde intramedullary nailing (IMN) was commonly performed by 88% of surgeons, and lateral locked plate was commonly performed by 74% of surgeons. Retrograde IMN with a lateral plate was commonly performed by 51% of surgeons. Dual femoral plating was commonly performed by 18% of surgeons and sometimes performed by 39% of surgeons. Surgeons were significantly more likely to allow immediate postoperative weight-bearing for retrograde IMN (P < 0.001), retrograde IMN with lateral plate (P < 0.001), and dual plate (P < 0.001) as compared with locked lateral plate. Most surgeons (79%) would be interested in participating in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) investigating single implant versus dual implant for distal femur fractures and believe that a trial incorporating immediate weight-bearing is important.

Conclusion

A variety of implants are commonly used to treat geriatric distal femur fractures. Patients with distal femur fracture commonly have weight-bearing restrictions in the immediate postoperative period. A large proportion of orthopaedic trauma surgeons have clinical equipoise for an RCT to investigate the impact of surgical construct and weight-bearing on geriatric distal femur fracture patient recovery.

Supplementary medial plating in revision surgery for distal femoral fractures: A surgical technique with clinical outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Distal femur fractures (DFF) are common, especially in the elderly and high energy trauma patients. Lateral locked osteosynthesis constructs have been widely used, however non-union and implant failures are not uncommon. Recent literature advocates for the liberal use of supplemental medial plating to augment lateral locked constructs. However, there is a lack of proprietary medial plate options, with some authors supporting the use of repurposing expensive anatomic pre-contoured plates. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of an effective, readily available medial implant option.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis from January 2014 to August 2023 was performed on DFF requiring revision open reduction internal fixation (rORIF) with supplemental medial plating with a Large Fragment Locking Compression Plate (LCP) T-Plate via a medial sub-vastus approach. The T-plate was contoured and placed superior to the medial condyle. A combination of 4.5 mm cortical, 5 mm locking and/or 6.5 mm cancellous screws were used, with oblique screw trajectories towards the distal lateral cortex of the lateral condyle. The primary outcome was union rate.

RESULTS

This technique was utilised on fifteen patients. The mean age was 55±15 (range 23-81); 73 % of cases were male and the median follow-up was 61 weeks (IQR 49-87). The two most common fracture patterns were AO/OTA 33-C3 (n = 5) and 33-A3 (n = 4), and three patients had open fractures. The union rate was 93 % (14/15), with a median time to union of 29 weeks (IQR 18-49). There were two complications: a deep infection requiring two debridements and locally eluding antibiotic insertion, and a prominent screw requiring removal; both patients achieved union. The median range of motion was 0° (IQR 0-5) of extension and 100° (IQR 90-120) of flexion.

CONCLUSION

Supplemental medial plating of DFF with a Large Fragment LCP T-Plate is a feasible, safe, and economical option for rORIF. Further validation on a larger scale is warranted, along with considerations to developing a specific implant in line with these principles.

Geriatric Distal Femur Fractures Treated With Distal Femoral Replacement Are Associated With Higher Rates of Readmissions and Complications

OBJECTIVE

Compare mortality and complications of distal femur fracture repair among elderly patients who receive operative fixation versus distal femur replacement (DFR).

DESIGN

Retrospective comparison.

SETTING

Medicare beneficiaries.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS

Patients 65 years of age and older with distal femur fracture identified using Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services data from 2016 to 2019.

INTERVENTION

Operative fixation (open reduction with plating or intramedullary nail) or DFR.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Mortality, readmissions, perioperative complications, and 90-day cost were compared between groups using Mahalanobis nearest-neighbor matching to account for differences in age, sex, race, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index.

RESULTS

Most patients (90%, 28,251/31,380) received operative fixation. Patients in the fixation group were significantly older (81.1 vs. 80.4 years, P < 0.001), and there were more an open fractures (1.6% vs. 0.5%, P < 0.001). There were no differences in 90-day (difference: 1.2% [-0.5% to 3%], P = 0.16), 6-month (difference: 0.6% [-1.5% to 2.7%], P = 0.59), and 1-year mortality (difference: -3.3% [-2.9 to 2.3], P = 0.80). DFR had greater 90-day (difference: 5.4% [2.8%-8.1%], P < 0.001), 6-month (difference: 6.5% [3.1%-9.9%], P < 0.001), and 1-year readmission (difference: 5.5% [2.2-8.7], P = 0.001). DFR had significantly greater rates of infection, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and device-related complication within 1 year from surgery. DFR ($57,894) was significantly more expensive than operative fixation ($46,016; P < 0.001) during the total 90-day episode.

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly patients with distal femur fracture have a 22.5% 1-year mortality rate. DFR was associated with significantly greater infection, device-related complication, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, cost, and readmission within 90 days, 6 months, and 1 year of surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

How Often Do Complications and Mortality Occur After Operatively Treated Periprosthetic Proximal and Distal Femoral Fractures? A Register-based Study

BACKGROUND

The incidence of periprosthetic femoral fractures is increasing because of an increasing number of primary THAs and TKAs. High rates of complications and mortality are associated with periprosthetic fractures, but few studies have evaluated and compared the population-based incidences of these events after fractures.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What is the annual incidence of periprosthetic fractures treated with surgery in one hospital district in Finland? (2) How are those incidences changing over time? (3) What is the risk of complications, reoperations, and death after those injuries?

METHODS

This register-based study evaluated 2259 patients who underwent revision THA or TKA or any surgery for a femoral fracture between January 2004 and December 2016 at the only hospital in our district where these types of operations are performed. During the study period, the diagnosis and operation codes of the operated-on patients varied greatly, and they were somewhat inaccurate. We thus evaluated radiographs of all 2259 patients one by one, and created inclusion and exclusion criteria based on radiologic findings and medical records. Of those, 12% (279 of 2259) had periprosthetic fractures that met the inclusion criteria, and from these, we formed two study groups (periprosthetic proximal femur fractures, n = 171; periprosthetic distal femur fractures, n = 108). Eighty-eight percent (1980 of 2259) of the patients were excluded because they were treated for a condition other than periprosthetic femoral fracture. The follow-up period ended in December 2019 or at the time the patient died. To evaluate the population-based incidence, we drew the number of individuals with THA or TKA in the hospital district from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register and the Finnish Hospital Discharge Register. The characteristics of patients with operatively treated periprosthetic femoral fractures were evaluated in terms of age, gender, fracture type, implant type, and time from the index operation to periprosthetic fracture. The annual incidences of periprosthetic femoral fractures are summarized per 1000 person-years of individuals living with an implanted THA or TKA and per 100,000 individuals per year living in our hospital district. The risks of death, complications, and reoperations were evaluated for both groups, and comparisons were made in terms of patient characteristics.

RESULTS

The mean annual incidence of operatively treated periprosthetic proximal femur fractures per 1000 people living with THA implants was 2.3 ± 0.9 (95% confidence interval 1.8 to 2.7) per year, and for those with periprosthetic distal femur fractures with TKA implants, it was 1.3 ± 0.6 (95% CI 1.0 to 1.7). There was an increasing trend in the incidence of periprosthetic proximal femur fractures from 1.6 to 3.8 (95% CI 1.8 to 2.8) per 1000 arthroplasties, and it increased from 0.4 to 1.7 (95% CI 2.4 to 4.4) for periprosthetic distal femur fractures between 2004 and 2016. The mean population-based incidence of periprosthetic proximal femur fractures per 100,000 person-years was 5.3 ± 2.2 (95% CI 4.1 to 6.4) per year, and for periprosthetic distal femur fractures, it was 3.4 ± 1.7 (95% CI 2.5 to 4.4). The incidence of periprosthetic proximal femur fractures related to 100,000 person-years increased from 3.2 to 8.9 (95% CI 3.9 to 6.6), while the incidence of periprosthetic distal femur fractures increased from 1.3 to 4.4 (95% CI 2.4 to 4.8) during the study period. The cumulative incidence of major complications after periprosthetic proximal femur fracture was 8.8% at 1 year (95% CI 5.1% to 13.6%) and 12.3% at 10 years (95% CI 7.5% to 18.4%), and after periprosthetic distal femur fracture, it was 7.4% at 1 year (95% CI 3.5% to 13.4%) and 9.3% at 10 years (95% CI 4.7% to 15.7%). The cumulative incidence of reoperation after periprosthetic proximal femur fracture was 10.5% at 1 year (95% CI 6.5% to 15.7%) and 13.5% at 10 years (95% CI 8.9% to 19.1%), and for periprosthetic distal femur fracture, it was 8.3% at 1 year (95% CI 4.1% to 14.5%) and 13.8% at 10% years (95% CI 7.8% to 21.4%). The cumulative incidence of death after periprosthetic proximal femur fracture was 8.2% at 1 year (95% CI 4.7% to 12.9%) and 47.3% at 10 years (95% CI 38.1% to 55.9%), and after periprosthetic distal femur fractures, it was 14.8% at 1 year (95% CI 8.8% to 22.2%) and 67.8% at 10 years (95% CI 56.3% to 76.9%).

CONCLUSION

The increased use of THA and TKA has led to an increase in the incidence of operatively treated periprosthetic fractures, which means there will be more revisions in the future. Older age, frailty of these patients, and often-complicated fracture patterns are related to a high rate of complications, reoperations, and mortality. Healthcare systems must prepare for a large increase in revisions for periprosthetic fracture, which are morbid events for patients and costly ones for healthcare systems.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Prediction of fracture nonunion leading to secondary surgery in patients with distal femur fractures

Aims

Several previously identified patient-, injury-, and treatment-related factors are associated with the development of nonunion in distal femur fractures. However, the predictive value of these factors is not well defined. We aimed to assess the predictive ability of previously identified risk factors in the development of nonunion leading to secondary surgery in distal femur fractures.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with traumatic distal femur fracture treated with lateral locking plate between 2009 and 2018. The patients who underwent secondary surgery due to fracture healing problem or plate failure were considered having nonunion. Background knowledge of risk factors of distal femur fracture nonunion based on previous literature was used to form an initial set of variables. A logistic regression model was used with previously identified patient- and injury-related variables (age, sex, BMI, diabetes, smoking, periprosthetic fracture, open fracture, trauma energy, fracture zone length, fracture comminution, medial side comminution) in the first analysis and with treatment-related variables (different surgeon-controlled factors, e.g. plate length, screw placement, and proximal fixation) in the second analysis to predict the nonunion leading to secondary surgery in distal femur fractures.

Results

We were able to include 299 fractures in 291 patients. Altogether, 31/299 fractures (10%) developed nonunion. In the first analysis, pseudo-R2 was 0.27 and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.81. BMI was the most important variable in the prediction. In the second analysis, pseudo-R2 was 0.06 and AUC was 0.67. Plate length was the most important variable in the prediction.

Conclusion

The model including patient- and injury-related factors had moderate fit and predictive ability in the prediction of distal femur fracture nonunion leading to secondary surgery. BMI was the most important variable in prediction of nonunion. Surgeon-controlled factors had a minor role in prediction of nonunion.

Perioperative allogenic blood transfusions are associated with increased fracture related infection rates, but not nonunion in operatively treated distal femur fractures

INTRODUCTION

Distal femur fractures are common injuries that remain difficult for orthopedic surgeons to treat. High complication rates, including nonunion rates as high as 24% and infection rates of 8%, can lead to increased morbidity for these patients. Allogenic blood transfusions have previously been identified as risk factors for infection in total joint arthroplasty and spinal fusion surgeries. No studies have explored the relationship between blood transfusions and fracture related infection (FRI) or nonunion in distal femur fractures.

METHODS

418 patients with operatively treated distal femur fractures at two level I trauma centers were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics were collected including age, gender, BMI, medical comorbidities, and smoking. Injury and treatment information was also collected including open fracture, polytrauma status, implant, perioperative transfusions, FRI, and nonunion. Patients with less than three months of follow up were excluded.

RESULTS

366 patients were included in final analysis. One hundred thirty-nine (38%) patients received a perioperative blood transfusion. Forty-seven (13%) nonunions and 30 (8%) FRI were identified. Allogenic blood transfusion was not associated with nonunion (13% vs 12%, P = 0.87), but was associated with FRI (15% vs 4%, P<0.001). Binary logistic regression analysis identified a dose dependent relationship between number of perioperative blood transfusions and FRI: total transfusion ≥2 U PRBC RR= 3.47(1.29, 8.10, P = 0.02), ≥3 RR= 6.99 (3.01, 12.40, P<0.001), and ≥4 RR= 8.94 (4.03, 14.42, P<0.001).

DISCUSSION

In patients undergoing operative treatment of distal femur fractures, perioperative blood transfusions are associated with increased risk of fracture related infection, but not the development of a nonunion. This risk association increases in a dose-dependent relationship with increasing total blood transfusions received.

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.

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.

Novel classification system for periprosthetic distal femoral fractures: a consideration for comminution

PURPOSE

Comminution is an aspect of periprosthetic distal femoral fractures (PDFFs) that can influence postoperative outcomes and treatment selection, but is not included in current classification systems. We propose a new classification system for PDFFs based on comminution and cortical reads. This study aims to prove its reliability and efficacy to predict fracture severity and guide treatment.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of patients treated with single or dual locking plates for PDFFs was performed. Two fellowship-trained orthopedic joint reconstruction specialists used available imaging to classify each PDFF as either type 1 (minimal or no comminution allowing for reconstruction of medial and lateral cortices), type 2 (comminution reasonably allowing for reconstruction of either medial or lateral cortex), and type 3 (extensive comminution not allowing reasonable reconstruction of medial or lateral cortex). Each PDFF was then analyzed for radiographic outcomes including lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA) and the posterior distal femoral angle (PDFA).

RESULTS

Interobserver reliability assessed by Cohen's Kappa statistic was 0.707, and average intraobserver reliability was 0.843, showing substantial reliability. Type 3 PDFFs had greater varus deformity than type 1 (p = 0.0457) or 2 (0.0198).

CONCLUSION

The proposed classification system accounts for comminution, demonstrates strong interobserver and intraobserver reliability, and can be used to guide treatment in regard to single versus dual plating.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective comparative study, Level IV.

DISTAL FEMORAL FRACTURES FROM HIGH-ENERGY TRAUMA: A RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW OF COMPLICATION RATE AND RISK FACTORS

Objective

Determine complications' incidence and risk factors in high-energy distal femur fractures fixed with a lateral locked plate.

Methods

Forty-seven patients were included; 87.2% were male, and the average age was 38.9. The main radiographic parameters collected were distal lateral femoral angle (DFA), distal posterior femoral angle (DPLF), comminution length, plate length, screw working length, bone loss, and medial contact after reduction and plate-bone contact, location of callus formation, and implant failure. The complications recorded were nonunion, implant failure, and infection.

Results

Complex C2 and C3 fractures accounted for 85.1% of cases. Open fractures accounted for 63.8% of cases. The mean AFDL and AFDP were 79.8 4.0 and 79.3 6.0, respectively. The average total proximal and distal working lengths were 133.3 42.7, 60.4 33.4, and 29.5 21.8 mm, respectively. The infection rate was 29.8%, and the only risk factor was open fracture (p = 0.005). The nonunion rate was 19.1%, with longer working length (p = 0.035) and higher PDFA (p = 0.001) as risk factors. The site of callus formation also influenced pseudoarthrosis (p = 0.034).

Conclusion

High-energy distal femoral fractures have a higher incidence of pseudoarthrosis and infection. Nonunion has greater working length, greater AFDL, and absence of callus formation on the medial and posterior sides as risk factors. The risk factor for infection was an open fracture. Level of Evidence III; Retrospective Cohort Study .

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

BACKGROUND

Distal 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.

METHODS

One 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.

RESULTS

The size of the distal fracture segment and Su classification did not correlate with increased complication rate in periprosthetic distal femur fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

There 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.

Comparable Outcomes Between Native and Periprosthetic Fractures of the Distal Femur

Despite the rising prevalence of arthroplasty and aging population, limited data exist regarding differences in periprosthetic fracture clinical outcomes compared with native counterparts. This study compares differences in hospital treatment, morbidity, and mortality associated with periprosthetic distal femur fractures at an urban level 1 trauma center. We retrospectively reviewed all adult AO/OTA type 33 fractures (526) that presented to our institution between 2009 and 2018. In total, 54 native and 54 periprosthetic fractures were matched by age and gender. We recorded demographics, operative measures, length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, and mortality. We used McNemar's and paired t-tests for analysis where appropriate (p < 0.05) (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0. Armonk, NY; IBM Corp.). The average age at injury was 74 years ± 12 (native) compared with 73 years ± 12 (periprosthetic). After 1:1 matching, the groups had similar body mass index (31.01 vs. 32.98, p = 0.966 for native and periprosthetic, respectively) and mechanisms of injury with 38 native and 44 periprosthetic (p = 0.198) fractures from low-energy falls. Both groups had 51/54 fractures managed with open reduction internal fixation with a locking plate. The remaining were managed via amputation or intramedullary nail fixation. Mean operative time (144 minutes (±64) vs. 132 minutes (±62), p = 0.96) and estimated blood loss (319 mL (±362) vs. 289 mL (±231), p = 0.44) were comparable between the native and periprosthetic groups, respectively. LOS: 9 days ± 7 (native) versus 7 days ± 5 (periprosthetic, p = 0.31); discharge disposition (to skilled nursing facility/rehab): n = 47 (native) versus n = 43 (periprosthetic, p = 0.61); and mortality: n = 6 (native) versus n = 8 (periprosthetic, p = 0.55). No significant differences were observed. We found no statistical differences in morbidity and mortality in periprosthetic distal femur fractures treated over 10 years at a level 1 trauma center. Native and periprosthetic AO/OTA type 33 distal femur fractures are serious injuries with similar outcomes at a level 1 trauma center.

Comminuted periprosthetic distal femoral fractures have greater postoperative extension malalignment

INTRODUCTION

Comminution 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 METHODS

37 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.

RESULTS

Patients 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).

DISCUSSION

Current 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.

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.

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.

Distal Femur Replacement Versus Surgical Fixation for the Treatment of Geriatric Distal Femur Fractures: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

The management of geriatric distal femur fractures is controversial, and both primary distal femur replacement (DFR) and surgical fixation (SF) are viable treatment options. The purpose of this study was to compare patient outcomes after these treatment strategies.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for English language articles up to April 24, 2020, identifying 2129 papers.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies evaluating complications in elderly patients treated for distal femur fractures with either immediate DFR or SF were included. Studies with mean patient age <55 years, nontraumatic indications for DFR, or SF with nonlocking plates were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two studies provided Level II or III evidence, whereas the remaining 28 studies provided Level IV evidence. Studies were formally evaluated for methodological quality using established criteria. Treatment failure between groups was compared using an incidence rate ratio.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Treatment failure was defined for both SF and arthroplasty as complications requiring a major reoperation for reasons such as mechanical failure, nonunion, deep infection, aseptic loosening, or extensor mechanism disruption. There were no significant differences in complication rates or knee range of motion between SF and DFR.

CONCLUSIONS

SF and DFR for the treatment of geriatric distal femur fractures demonstrate similar overall complication rates. Given the available evidence, no strong conclusions on the comparative effectiveness between the 2 treatments can be definitively made. More rigorous prospective research comparing SF vs. DFR to treat acute geriatric distal femur fractures is warranted.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See instructions for authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture around total hip replacements: current concepts and clinical outcomes

The rising incidence of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) presents a significant clinical and economic burden.

A detailed understanding of risk factors is required in order to guide preventative strategies.

Different femoral stems have unique characteristics and management strategies must be tailored appropriately.

Consensus regarding treatment of PFFs around well-fixed stems is lacking, but revision surgery may provide more predictable outcomes for unstable fracture patterns and fractures around polished taper-slip stems.

Future research should focus on implant-related risk factors, treatment of concurrent metabolic bone disease and the use of large endoprostheses.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:558-567. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.200003

Mortality Following Distal Femur Fractures Versus Proximal Femur Fractures in Elderly Population: The Impact of Best Practice Tariff

Background and objectives

The mortality after hip, proximal femur, fractures in elderly patients has steadily declined in the last decade in the United Kingdom as a result of implementing of multiple protocols focusing on prompt multidisciplinary pre- and post-operative optimization and reducing time to surgery. The pinnacle of these protocols is the development of the best practice tariff as an incentive program for hospitals that meet set criteria by the National Health Service (NHS) England in managing these injuries. Until the time of writing this paper, there was no parallel program for the management of fractures involving distal femur in the elderly. The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of distal femur fractures in elderly patients against proximal femur fractures regarding post-injury mortality, the prevalence of surgical treatment and time delay till surgery.

Methods

A retrospective study of all patients above the age of 60 admitted to Queens Hospital Burton between 2010 and 2014 with fractures involving distal end of the femur. Patient data were assessed for demographic criteria, co-morbidities as per Charleston Comorbidities Index, type of management, time-lapse before surgery and 30-day, six-month and one-year mortality. Results were compared to an age-matched control group of patients with proximal femur fractures randomly selected during the same time window.

Results

The main demographic criteria such as age, gender, and Charleston Comorbidities Index were similar in both groups. There were more patients treated non-operatively in the distal femur group than in the proximal femur group (15% vs 4%). Time to surgery was statistically significantly longer in distal femur group compared to the proximal femur (49.130 hours vs 34.075 hours, P = 0.041). The mortality in distal femur group was higher at all times (9.68% at 30 days, 20.32% at six months and 34.41% at one year) when compared to that in the proximal femur group (6.99% at 30 days, 14.52% at six months, 21.51% at one year).

Conclusion

The distal femoral fractures showed higher mortality at 30 days, six months and one year compared to the proximal femur group. This could be partly influenced by the implementation of best practice tariff in the proximal femur fracture group reflected in less time to surgery, pre- and post-operative multidisciplinary approach and more frequent operative management.

Dual Plating of the Distal Femur: Indications and Surgical Techniques

Dual-plating of the distal femur is required in some cases to achieve stable fixation. The indications of a medial plate in addition to the lateral plate are medial supracondylar bone loss, low trans-condylar bicondylar fractures, medial Hoffa fracture, peri-prosthetic distal femur fractures, non-union after failed fixation with single lateral plate, poor bone quality and comminuted distal femur fractures (AO type C3). We recommend orthogonal plate configuration with locked plates by a single incision or dual incision approach as per surgeon choice.