» Articles » PMID: 34001801

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

Overview
Journal J Orthop Trauma
Date 2021 May 18
PMID 34001801
Citations 16
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Dual Plating for Periprosthetic Distal Femoral Fractures Using the Extensile Medial or Lateral Parapatellar Approach.

Kriechling P, Bowley A, Scott C Arthroplast Today. 2024; 28:101456.

PMID: 39539453 PMC: 11558257. DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2024.101456.


A novel strain-based bone-fracture healing algorithm is able to predict a range of healing outcomes.

Morgan G, Low L, Ramasamy A, Masouros S Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2024; 12:1477405.

PMID: 39493303 PMC: 11527658. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1477405.


Changing Epidemiology of Distal Femur Fractures: Increase in Geriatric Fractures and Rates of Distal Femur Replacement.

Dekeyser G, Thorne T, Martin B, Haller J J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2024; 32(24):e1289-e1298.

PMID: 39231280 PMC: 11624094. DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-24-00007.


Double plating is a suitable option for periprosthetic distal femur fracture compared to single plate fixation and distal femoral arthroplasty.

Kriechling P, Bowley A, Ross L, Moran M, Scott C Bone Jt Open. 2024; 5(6):489-498.

PMID: 38862133 PMC: 11166487. DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.56.BJO-2023-0145.R1.


Periprosthetic Distal Femoral Fractures Around a Total Knee Arthroplasty: a Meta-analysis Comparing Locking compression Plating and Retrograde Intramedullary Nailing.

Al-Jabri T, Wood M, Faddul F, Musbahi O, Bajracharya A, Magan A Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2024; 16:91507.

PMID: 38765295 PMC: 10807720. DOI: 10.52965/001c.91507.