Aims. Debate continues regarding the optimum management of periprosthetic distal femoral fractures (PDFFs). This study aims to determine which operative treatment is associated with the lowest perioperative morbidity and mortality when treating low (Su type II and III) PDFFs comparing lateral locking plate fixation (LLP-ORIF) or distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA). Methods. This was a retrospective cohort study of 60 consecutive unilateral (PDFFs) of Su types II (40/60) and III (20/60) in patients aged ≥ 60 years: 33 underwent LLP-ORIF (mean age 81.3 years (SD 10.5), BMI 26.7 (SD 5.5); 29/33 female); and 27 underwent DFA (mean age 78.8 years (SD 8.3); BMI 26.7 (SD 6.6); 19/27 female). The primary outcome measure was reoperation. Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications, calculated blood loss, transfusion requirements, functional mobility status, length of acute hospital stay, discharge destination and mortality. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed. Cox multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for reoperation after LLP-ORIF. Results. Follow-up was at mean 3.8 years (1.0 to 10.4). One-year mortality was 13% (8/60). Reoperation was more common following LLP-ORIF: 7/33 versus 0/27 (p = 0.008). Five-year survival for reoperation was significantly better following DFA; 100% compared to 70.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 51.8% to 89.8%, p = 0.006). There was no difference for the endpoint mechanical failure (including radiological loosening); ORIF 74.5% (56.3 to 92.7), and DFA 78.2% (52.3 to 100, p = 0.182). Reoperation following LLP-ORIF was independently associated with medial comminution; hazard ratio (HR) 10.7 (1.45 to 79.5, p = 0.020). Anatomical reduction was protective against reoperation; HR 0.11 (0.013 to 0.96, p = 0.046). When inadequately fixed fractures were excluded, there was no difference in five-year survival for either reoperation (p = 0.156) or mechanical failure (p = 0.453). Conclusion. Absolute reoperation rates are higher following LLP fixation of low PDFFs compared to DFA. Where LLP-ORIF was well performed with augmentation of medial comminution, there was no difference in survival compared to DFA. Though necessary in very low fractures, DFA should be used with caution in patients with greater life expectancies due to the risk of longer term aseptic loosening. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):635–643

Aims. The purpose of this study was to compare reoperation and revision rates of double plating (DP), single plating using a lateral locking plate (SP), or distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA) for the treatment of periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PDFFs). Methods. All patients with PDFF primarily treated with DP, SP, or DFA between 2008 and 2022 at a university teaching hospital were included in this retrospective cohort study. The primary outcome was revision surgery for failure following DP, SP, or DFA. Secondary outcome measures included any reoperation, length of hospital stay, and mortality. All basic demographic and relevant implant and injury details were collected. Radiological analysis included fracture classification and evaluation of metaphyseal and medial comminution. Results. A total of 111 PDFFs (111 patients, median age 82 years (interquartile range (IQR) 75 to 88), 86% female) with 32 (29%) Su classification 1, 37 (34%) Su 2, and 40 (37%) Su 3 fractures were included. The median follow-up was 2.5 years (IQR 1.2 to 5.0). DP, SP, and DFA were used in 15, 66, and 30 patients, respectively. Compared to SP, patients treated with DP were more likely to have metaphyseal comminution (47% vs 14%; p = 0.009), to be low fractures (47% vs 11%; p = 0.009), and to be anatomically reduced (100% vs 71%; p = 0.030). Patients selected for DFA displayed comparable amounts of medial/metaphyseal comminution as those who underwent DP. At a minimum follow-up of two years, revision surgery for failure was performed in 11 (9.9%) cases at a median of five months (IQR 2 to 9): 0 DP patients (0%), 9 SP (14%), and 2 DFA (6.7%) (p = 0.249). Conclusion. Using a strategy of DP fixation in fractures, where the fracture was low but there was enough distal bone to accommodate locking screws, and where there is metaphyseal comminution, resulted in equivalent survival free from revision or reoperation compared to DFA and SP fixation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(6):489–498

The April 2024 Trauma Roundup. 360. looks at: The infra-acetabular screw in acetabular fracture surgery; Is skin traction helpful in patients with intertrochanteric hip fractures?; Reducing pain and improving function following hip fracture surgery; Are postoperative splints helpful following ankle fracture fixation?; Biomechanics of internal fixation in Hoffa fractures: a comparison of four different constructs; Dual-plate fixation of periprosthetic distal femur fractures; Do direct oral anticoagulants necessarily mean a delay to hip fracture surgery?; Plate or retrograde nail for low distal femur fractures?

Aims. Endoprosthetic reconstruction with a distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA) can be used to treat distal femoral bone loss from oncological and non-oncological causes. This study reports the short-term implant survivorship, complications, and risk factors for patients who underwent DFA for non-neoplastic indications. Methods. We performed a retrospective review of 75 patients from a single institution who underwent DFA for non-neoplastic indications, including aseptic loosening or mechanical failure of a previous prosthesis (n = 25), periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 23), and native or periprosthetic distal femur fracture or nonunion (n = 27). Patients with less than 24 months’ follow-up were excluded. We collected patient demographic data, complications, and reoperations. Reoperation for implant failure was used to calculate implant survivorship. Results. Overall one- and five-year implant survivorship was 87% and 76%, respectively. By indication for DFA, mechanical failure had one- and five-year implant survivorship of 92% and 68%, PJI of 91% and 72%, and distal femur fracture/nonunion of 78% and 70% (p = 0.618). A total of 37 patients (49%) experienced complications and 27 patients (36%) required one or more reoperation. PJI (n = 16, 21%), aseptic loosening (n = 9, 12%), and wound complications (n = 8, 11%) were the most common complications. Component revision (n = 10, 13.3%) and single-stage exchange for PJI (n = 9, 12.0 %) were the most common reoperations. Only younger age was significantly associated with increased complications (mean 67 years (SD 9.1)) with complication vs 71 years (SD 9.9) without complication; p = 0.048). Conclusion. DFA is a viable option for distal femoral bone loss from a range of non-oncological causes, demonstrating acceptable short-term survivorship but with high overall complication rates. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):173–181

The management of periprosthetic distal femur fractures is an issue of increasing importance for orthopaedic surgeons. Because of the expanding indications for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and an aging population with increasingly active lifestyles there has been a corresponding increase in the prevalence of these injuries. The management of these fractures is often complex because of issues with obtaining fixation around implants and dealing with osteopenic bone or compromised bone stock. In addition, these injuries frequently occur in frail, elderly patients, and the early restoration of function and ambulation is critical in these patients. There remains substantial controversy with respect to the optimal treatment of periprosthetic distal femur fractures, with some advocating for Locked Plating (LP), others Retrograde Intramedullary Nailing (RIMN) and finally those who advocate for Distal Femoral Replacement (DFR). The literature comparing these treatments, has been infrequent, and commonly restricted to single-center studies. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively evaluate a large series of operatively treated periprosthetic distal femur fractures from multiple centers and compare treatment strategies. Patients who were treated operatively for a periprosthetic distal femur fracture at 8 centers across North America between 2003 and 2018 were retrospectively identified. Baseline characteristics, surgical details and post-operative clinical outcomes were collected from patients meeting inclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria were patients aged 18 and older, any displaced operatively treated periprosthetic femur fracture and documented 1 year follow-up. Patients with other major lower extremity trauma or ipsilateral total hip replacement were excluded. Patients were divided into 3 groups depending on the type of fixation received: Locked Plating, Retrograde Intramedullary Nailing and Distal Femoral Replacement. Documented clinical follow-up was reviewed at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year following surgery. Outcome and covariate measures were assessed using basic descriptive statistics. Categorical variables, including the rate of re-operation, were compared across the three treatment groups using Fisher Exact Test. In total, 121 patients (male: 21% / female: 79%) from 8 centers were included in our analysis. Sixty-seven patients were treated with Locked Plating, 15 with Retrograde Intramedullary Nailing, and 39 were treated with Distal Femoral Replacement. At 1 year, 64% of LP patients showed radiographic union compared to 77% in the RIMN group (p=0.747). Between the 3 groups, we did not find any significant differences in ambulation, return to work and complication rates at 6 months and 1 year (Table 1). Reoperation rates at 1 year were 27% in the LP group (17 reoperations), 16% in the DFR group (6 reoperations) and 0% in the RIMN group. These differences were not statistically significant (p=0.058). We evaluated a large multicenter series of operatively treated periprosthetic distal femur fractures in this study. We did not find any statistically significant differences at 1 year between treatment groups in this study. There was a trend towards a lower rate of reoperation in the Retrograde Intramedullary Nailing group that should be evaluated further with prospective studies. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

With an aging population and increase in total knee arthroplasty, periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PDFFs) have increased. The differences between these fractures and native distal femur fractures (NDFF) have not been comprehensively investigated. The purpose of this study was to compare the demographic, fracture, and treatment details of PDFFs compared to NDFFs. A retrospective study of patients ≥ 18 years old who underwent surgical treatment for either a NDFF or a PDFF from 2010 to 2020 at a level 1 trauma center was performed. Demographics, AO/OTA fracture classification, quality of reduction, fixation constructs, and unplanned revision reoperation were compared between PDFF patients and NDFF patients using t-test and Fisher's exact test. 209 patients were identified with 70 patients having a PDFF and 139 patients having a NDFF. Of note, 48% of NDFF had a concomitant fracture of the ipsilateral knee (14%) or tibial plateau (15%). The most common AO/OTA classification for PDFFs was 33A3.3 (71%). NDFFs had two main AO/OTA classifications of 33C2.2 (28%) or 33A3.2. (25%). When controlling for patient age, bone quality, fracture classification, and fixation, the PDFF group had increased revision reoperation rate compared to NDFF (P < 0.05). PDFFs tend to occur in elderly patients with low bone quality, have complete metaphyseal comminution, and be isolated; whereas, NDFF tend to occur in younger patients, have less metaphyseal comminution, and be associated with other fractures. When controlling for variables, PDFF are at increased risk of unplanned revision reoperation. Surgeons should be aware of these increased risks in PDFFs and future research should focus on these unique fracture characteristics to improve outcomes

Introduction. Distal femur fractures around a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are a growing problem for orthopaedic surgeons. The purpose of this study was to identify risks of reoperation for nonunion following open reduction and internal fixation of TKA periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PDFF). Method. Patients with PDFF (AO 33A-C[VB1, C1, D1], Su types 1-3) managed operatively with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) were retrospectively reviewed. Exclusion criteria were acute management with a distal femur replacement, less than 6 months of follow-up, and lack of injury or follow-up radiographs. The primary outcome measure was reoperation to achieve bony union. Comparisons were made between cases that did and did not require a reoperation to achieve union. Univariate analysis was used to identify factors to be analyzed in multivariate analysis to determine independent risk factors for the primary outcome. Result. A total of 77 patients met inclusion criteria. Union rate was 69/77 (89.6%). There were no differences between the groups for age, sex, BMI, comorbidities, Su classification, open injury, or mechanism of injury. Multivariate analysis identified risks for nonunion including post-operative malalignment (OR 1.41; CI 1.20-1.64; p<0.001), notching pre-operatively (OR 1.22; CI 1.04-1.42; p=0.012), presence of screws through fracture line (OR 1.28; CI 1.17-1.39; p<0.001), plate length <12 holes (OR 1.16; CI 1.02-1.33; p=0.024) and screw density greater than 0.4 (OR 2.18; CI 1.25-3.78; p=0.006). Conclusion. The reoperation rate to promote union was 10.4%. The study identified post-operative malalignment, notching pre-operatively, presence of screws through fracture line, plate length <12 holes, and proximal screw density greater than 40% as independent risk factors for nonunion

Abstract. Introduction. We aimed to compare the outcomes of elderly patients with periarticular distal femur or supracondylar periprosthetic fractures treated with either open reduction internal fixation or distal femoral replacement. Methods. A retrospective review of patients over 65 years with AO Type B and C fractures of the distal femur or Su type I and II periprosthetic fractures treated with either a DFR or ORIF was undertaken. Outcomes including Length of Stay, PROMs (Oxford Knee Score and EQ 5D), infection, union, mortality, complication and reoperation rates were assessed. Data on confounding variables were also collected for multivariate analysis. Patients below 65 years and extra articular fractures were excluded. Results. 23 patients (11 in DFR group and 12 in ORIF group) fulfilled inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. There was no difference between the DFR and ORIF groups with respect to SDI, demographic variables, ASA grade, FCI, preoperative Hb and renal function. There was no difference in 30 day mortality, reoperation rates, 30 day readmission rates and LOS between the two groups. Mean follow up was 12.7 and 15.9 months respectively in the DFR and ORIF groups. At final follow up after accounting for all confounding variables on multivariate analysis, functional outcomes using OKS (adjusted mean: 29.5 vs 15.8) and Health related Quality of Life outcomes using EQ 5D (adjusted mean: 0.453 vs −0.07) were significantly better in the DFR group. Conclusion. DFR for periarticular and periprosthetic distal femoral fractures in the elderly are associated with better patient reported outcomes

Debate surrounds the optimum operative treatment of periprosthetic distal femoral fractures (PDFFs) at the level of well fixed femoral components; lateral locking plate fixation (LLP-ORIF) or distal femoral replacement (DFR). To determine which attributed the least peri-operative morbidity and mortality we performed a retrospective cohort study of 60 consecutive unilateral PDFFs of Su types II (40/60) and III (20/60) in patients ≥60 years; 33 underwent LLP-ORIF and 27 underwent DFR. The primary outcome measure was reoperation. Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications and functional mobility status. Kaplan Meier survival analysis was performed. Cox multivariable regression analysis identified risk factors for reoperation after LLP-ORIF. Mean length of follow-up was 3.8 years (range 1.0–10.4). One-year mortality was 13% (8/60). Reoperation rate was significantly higher following LLP-ORIF: 7/33 vs 0/27, p=0.008. For the endpoint reoperation, five-year survival was better following DFR: 100% compared to 70.8% (51.8 to 89.8 95%CI) (p=0.006). For the endpoint mechanical failure (including radiographic loosening) there was no difference at 5 years: ORIF 74.5% (56.3 to 92.7); DFR 78.2% (52.3 to 100), p=0.182). Reoperation following LLP-ORIF was independently associated with medial comminution: HR 10.7 (1.45 to 79.5, p=0.020). Anatomic reduction was protective against reoperation: HR 0.11(0.013 to 0.96, p=0.046). When inadequately fixed fractures were excluded differences in survival were no longer significant: reoperation (p=0.156); mechanical failure (p=0.453). Reoperation rates are higher following LLP-ORIF of low PDFFs compared to DFR. Where adequate reduction, proximal fixation and augmentation of medial comminution is used there is no difference in survival between LLP-ORIF and DFR

Periprosthetic femoral fractures are increasing in incidence, and typically occur in frail elderly patients. They are similar to pathological fractures in many ways. The aims of treatment are the same, including 'getting it right first time' with a single operation, which allows immediate unrestricted weightbearing, with a low risk of complications, and one that avoids the creation of stress risers locally that may predispose to further peri-implant fracture. The surgical approach to these fractures, the associated soft-tissue handling, and exposure of the fracture are key elements in minimizing the high rate of complications. This annotation describes the approaches to the femur that can be used to facilitate the surgical management of peri- and interprosthetic fractures of the femur at all levels using either modern methods of fixation or revision arthroplasty.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):593–601.

The December 2023 Trauma Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Distal femoral arthroplasty: medical risks under the spotlight; Quads repair: tunnels or anchors?; Complex trade-offs in treating severe tibial fractures: limb salvage versus primary amputation; Middle-sized posterior malleolus fractures – to fix?; Bone transport through induced membrane: a randomized controlled trial; Displaced geriatric femoral neck fractures; Risk factors for reoperation to promote union in 1,111 distal femur fractures; New versus old – reliability of the OTA/AO classification for trochanteric hip fractures; Risk factors for fracture-related infection after ankle fracture surgery.

It is unclear whether there is a limit to the amount of distal bone required to support fixation of supracondylar periprosthetic femoral fractures. This retrospective multicentre study evaluated lateral locked plating of periprosthetic supracondylar femoral fractures and compared the results according to extension of the fracture distal with the proximal border of the femoral prosthetic component.

Between 1999 and 2008, 89 patients underwent lateral locked plating of a supracondylar periprosthetic femoral fracture, of whom 61 patients with a mean age of 72 years (42 to 96) comprising 53 women, were available after a minimum follow-up of six months or until fracture healing. Patients were grouped into those with fractures located proximally (28) and those with fractures that extended distal to the proximal border of the femoral component (33).

Delayed healing and nonunion occurred respectively in five (18%) and three (11%) of more proximal fractures, and in two (6%) and five (15%) of the fractures with distal extension (p = 0.23 for delayed healing; p = 0.72 for nonunion, Fisher’s exact test). Four construct failures (14%) occurred in more proximal fractures, and three (9%) in fractures with distal extension (p = 0.51). Of the two deep infections that occurred in each group, one resolved after surgical debridement and antibiotics, and one progressed to a nonunion.

Extreme distal periprosthetic supracondylar fractures of the femur are not a contra-indication to lateral locked plating. These fractures can be managed with internal fixation, with predictable results, similar to those seen in more proximal fractures.