Periprosthetic Fractures of the Distal Femur: Is Open Reduction and Internal Fixation or Distal Femoral Replacement Superior?

BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) to distal femoral replacement (DFR) for treatment of displaced periprosthetic distal femur fractures.MethodsWe identified 72 patients with minimum 2-year follow-up following a displaced periprosthetic distal femur fracture: 50 were treated with ORIF and 22 with DFR. Outcomes were assessed with multivariate regression analysis and include Knee Society Scores (KSS), infection rates, revision incidence, and mortality.ResultsPatients treated with DFR had a higher Charlson comorbidity index (5.2 vs 3.8; P = .006). The mean postoperative KSS were similar between groups, but the Knee Society Functional Scores were higher in the ORIF group (P = .01). Six ORIF patients (12%) and 3 DFR patients (14%) underwent a revision surgery (P = .1). In the ORIF group, 3 revisions were associated with periprosthetic infection, and 3 revisions occurred for aseptic nonunion. In the DFR group, 1 infection was treated with irrigation and debridement, and 2 cases of patellar maltracking resulted in 1 liner exchange with soft tissue release and 1 femoral revision for malrotation. More patients in the ORIF group required repeat revisions, with twice as many total revisions (P < .001). Six ORIF patients and 7 DFR patients died within 2 years (P = .26).ConclusionThe Knee Society Functional Score favored ORIF, but the total incidence of revision was higher in the ORIF cohort. Given the high mortality and the substantial risk of reoperation in both groups, additional studies are needed regarding the prevention of and optimal treatment for patients with periprosthetic distal femur fractures.     

An international,cross-sectional survey of the management of Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures around total hip arthroplasties

IntroductionThe incidence of periprosthetic femoral fractures around total hip arthroplasties is increasing. Fractures around a stable implant stem (Vancouver type B1) are among the most common of these fractures. Various fixation strategies for Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic fractures have been reported in the literature; however, little high-level evidence exists. This study was designed to determine the current management strategies and opinions among orthopaedic surgeons treating Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures, and to evaluate the need for a large prospective randomized controlled trial for the management of these injuries.MethodsOrthopaedic surgeon members of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA), the Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA), and the Hip Society were invited to participate in a 51-item web-based survey surrounding the management of periprosthetic femoral fractures around total hip replacements, as well as the perceived need for future research in this area. Responses were summarized using proportions, and further stratified by practice type, case volume, surgeon age, and fellowship training.ResultsFor Vancouver type B1 fractures, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with locked plating was favoured slightly over ORIF with cable plating ± cortical strut allograft (51.1% versus 45.5%). When compared to cable plating with cortical strut allograft, respondents believed that isolated locked plating resulted in lower nonunion and reoperation rates, but similar infection and malunion rates. Subgroup analyses revealed that practice type, surgeon age, case volume, and fellowship training influenced surgeons’ management of periprosthetic femoral fractures and beliefs regarding complications. There is high demand for a large prospective randomized controlled trial for Vancouver type B1 fracture fixation.ConclusionsConsensus surrounding the management of Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures is lacking, and there is a perceived need among orthopaedic surgeons for a large prospective randomized controlled trial in order to define the optimal management of these injuries.     

Periprosthetic Tibial Fractures After Total Knee Arthroplasty: Early and Long-Term Clinical Outcomes

BackgroundAlthough periprosthetic fractures are increasing in prevalence, evidence-based guidelines for the optimal treatment of periprosthetic tibial fractures (PTx) are lacking. Thus, the purpose of this study is to assess the clinical outcomes in PTx after a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) which were treated with different treatment options.MethodsA retrospective review was performed on a consecutive series of 34 nontumor patients treated at 2 academic institutions who experienced a PTx after TKA (2008-2016). Felix classification was used to classify fractures (Felix = I-II-III; subgroup = A-B-C) which were treated by closed reduction, open reduction/internal fixation, revision TKA, or proximal tibial replacement. Patient demographics and surgical characteristics were collected. Failure of treatment was defined as any revision or reoperation. Independent t-tests, one-way analysis of variance, chi-squared analyses, and Fisher’s exact tests were conducted.ResultsPatients with Felix I had more nonsurgical complications when compared to Felix III patients (P = .006). Felix I group developed more postoperative anemia requiring transfusion than Felix III group (P = .009). All fracture types had >30% revision and >50% readmission rate with infection being the most common cause. These did not differ between Felix fracture types. Patients who underwent proximal tibial replacement had higher rate of postoperative infection (P = .030), revision surgery (P = .046), and required more flap reconstructions (P = .005).ConclusionPTx after a TKA is associated with high revision and readmission rates. Patients with Felix type I fractures are at higher risk of postoperative nonsurgical complications and anemia requiring transfusion. Fractures treated with proximal tibial replacement are more likely to develop postoperative infections and undergo revision surgery.     

Periprosthetic Femur Fractures After Total Hip Arthroplasty: Does the Mode of Failure Correlate With Classification?

BackgroundPeriprosthetic femur fracture is one of the most common indications for reoperation after total hip arthroplasty. Our objectives were to evaluate the incidence of reoperation after the surgical treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures and to compare the mechanisms of failure between fractures around a stable femoral component and those with an unstable femoral component.MethodsWe identified a consecutive series of 196 surgically treated periprosthetic fractures after total hip arthroplasty between 2008 and 2017. Mean age was 72 years (range, 29-96 years), and 108 (55%) were women. The femoral component was unstable in 127 cases (65%) and stable in the remaining 69 cases (35%). Mean follow-up was 2 years.ResultsThe 2-year cumulative probability of any reoperation was 19%. The most common indication for reoperation among the cases with a stable femoral component was nonunion, and the most common indication for reoperation among the cases with an unstable femoral component was infection. Fractures that originated at the distal aspect of the femoral component were associated with a high risk of nonunion (6 of 28 cases, P < .01) and reoperation (9 of 28 cases, P = .03).ConclusionSurgeons should take measures to mitigate the failure modes that are distinct based on fracture type. The high infection rate after surgical management of B₂ fracture suggests that additional antiseptic precautions may be warranted. For B₁ fractures, particularly those originating near the distal aspect of the femoral component, augmenting fixation with orthogonal plating, spanning the entire femur, or revising the stem in cases of poor proximal bone should be considered.     

A multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial of open reduction--internal fixation versus total elbow arthroplasty for displaced intra-articular distal humeral fractures in elderly patients

We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled trial to compare functional outcomes, complications, and reoperation rates in elderly patients with displaced intra-articular, distal humeral fractures treated with open reduction-internal fixation (ORIF) or primary semiconstrained total elbow arthroplasty (TEA). Forty-two patients were randomized by sealed envelope. Inclusion criteria were age greater than 65 years; displaced, comminuted, intra-articular fractures of the distal humerus (Orthopaedic Trauma Association type 13C); and closed or Gustilo grade I open fractures treated within 12 hours of injury. Both ORIF and TEA were performed following a standardized protocol. The Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score were determined at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and 2 years. Complication type, duration, management, and treatment requiring reoperation were recorded. An intention-to-treat analysis and an on-treatment analysis were conducted to address patients randomized to ORIF but converted to TEA intraoperatively. Twenty-one patients were randomized to each treatment group. Two died before follow-up and were excluded from the study. Five patients randomized to ORIF were converted to TEA intraoperatively because of extensive comminution and inability to obtain fixation stable enough to allow early range of motion. This resulted in 15 patients (3 men and 12 women) with a mean age of 77 years in the ORIF group and 25 patients (2 men and 23 women) with a mean age of 78 years in the TEA group. Baseline demographics for mechanism, classification, comorbidities, fracture type, activity level, and ipsilateral injuries were similar between the 2 groups. Operative time averaged 32 minutes less in the TEA group (P = .001). Patients who underwent TEA had significantly better MEPSs at 3 months (83 vs 65, P = .01), 6 months (86 vs 68, P = .003), 12 months (88 vs 72, P = .007), and 2 years (86 vs 73, P = .015) compared with the ORIF group. Patients who underwent TEA had significantly better DASH scores at 6 weeks (43 vs 77, P = .02) and 6 months (31 vs 50, P = .01) but not at 12 months (32 vs 47, P = .1) or 2 years (34 vs 38, P = .6). The mean flexion-extension arc was 107 degrees (range, 42 degrees -145 degrees) in the TEA group and 95 degrees (range, 30 degrees -140 degrees) in the ORIF group (P = .19). Reoperation rates for TEA (3/25 [12%]) and ORIF (4/15 [27%]) were not statistically different (P = .2). TEA for the treatment of comminuted intra-articular distal humeral fractures resulted in more predictable and improved 2-year functional outcomes compared with ORIF, based on the MEPS. DASH scores were better in the TEA group in the short term but were not statistically different at 2 years' follow-up. TEA may result in decreased reoperation rates, considering that 25% of fractures randomized to ORIF were not amenable to internal fixation. TEA is a preferred alternative for ORIF in elderly patients with complex distal humeral fractures that are not amenable to stable fixation. Elderly patients have an increased baseline DASH score and appear to accommodate to objective limitations in function with time.     

Management of distal femoral periprosthetic fractures by distal femoral locking plate: A retrospective study.

Background:

Management of periprosthetic supracondylar femoral fractures is difficult. Osteoporosis, comminution and bone loss, compromise stability with delayed mobility and poor functional outcomes. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with anatomic distal femoral (DF) locking plate permits early mobilization. However, this usually necessitates bone grafting (BG). Biological fixation using minimally invasive techniques minimizes periosteal stripping and morbidity.

Materials and Methods:

31 patients with comminuted periprosthetic DF fractures were reviewed retrospectively from October 2006 to September 2012. All patients underwent fixation using a DF locking compression plate (Synthes). 17 patients underwent ORIF with primary BG, whereas 14 were treated by closed reduction (CR) and internal fixation using biological minimally invasive techniques. Clinical and radiological followup were recorded for an average 36 months.

Results:

Mean time to union for the entire group was 5.6 months (range 3-9 months). Patients of ORIF group took longer (Mean 6.4 months, range 4.5-9 months) than the CR group (mean 4.6 months, range 3-7 months). Three patients of ORIF and one in CR group had poor results. Mean knee society scores were higher for CR group at 6 months, but nearly identical at 12 months, with similar eventual range of motion.

Discussion:

Locked plating of comminuted periprosthetic DF fractures permits stable rigid fixation and early mobilization. Fixation using minimally invasive biological techniques minimizes morbidity and may obviate the need for primary BG.     

Tibial pilon fractures: a comparison of treatment methods

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective review of surgically treated distal tibia fractures was undertaken to determine whether treatment with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) was more efficacious in achieving fracture union than one of two external fixation methods. METHODS: Of the 60 study patients with pilon fractures, 21 patients were treated with an ankle-spanning half-pin external fixator, 15 patients with a single-ring hybrid external fixator, and 24 patients with ORIF. The severity of injuries was similar across groups. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in complication rates between groups, although two below-knee amputations were required in the ORIF group. A greater (p = 0.03) number of malunions occurred in the fractures treated with external fixation when compared with those treated with ORIF. Fractures in the external fixator groups showed this significant tendency to lose their initial adequate reduction, independent of bone grafting or fibula fixation. There was no significant difference between groups in the need for bone grafting. There was a trend for patients treated with a single ring hybrid frame to require late bone grafting for metaphyseal-diaphyseal nonunion. CONCLUSION: External fixation offers advantages in the treatment of the soft-tissue injury associated with pilon fractures, but malunion continues to be a problem with this method of fixation.     

Locking compression plate versus revision-prosthesis for Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty

IntroductionRevision arthroplasty is currently the recommended treatment for periprosthetic femoral fractures after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and stem loosening (Vancouver B2). However, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) utilizing locking compression plate (LCP) might be an effective treatment with a reduced surgical time and less complex procedure in a typically elderly patient collective with multiple comorbidities. The purpose of this study was to compare the functional and radiographic outcomes in two cohorts with Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures after primary THA, treated either by ORIF with LCP fixation, or by revision arthroplasty utilizing a non-cemented long femoral stem.Materials and Methods36 patients with Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures following THA, who had been treated between 2000 and 2014, were reviewed. Eight fractures were treated with LCP fixation, fourteen fractures with the first-generation revision prosthesis (Helios^®), and fourteen fractures with the second-generation revision prosthesis (Hyperion™). The patients were assessed clinically with the Parker mobility score and radiographically.ResultsA total of ten males and 26 females formed the basis of this report with an average age of 81years (range, 64 to 96 years). All fractures treated with LCP fixation alone healed uneventfully and there were no signs of secondary stem migration, malalignement or plate breakage. The average surgical time was shorter in the ORIF cohort; however, the results were not statistically significant. The postoperative Parker mobility score at latest follow-up showed no difference between the groups.ConclusionsAccording to the results of the current study, we conclude that the use of LCP fixation can be a sufficient option for the treatment of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures correspondingly with femoral stem loosening.     

Deltoid ligament repair versus trans-syndesmotic fixation for bimalleolar equivalent ankle fractures

IntroductionThe role of deltoid ligament repair is controversial in the treatment of bimalleolar equivalent ankle injuries. Our purpose was to compare midterm functional outcomes and reoperation rates of unstable distal fibula fractures treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) of the fibula and either deltoid ligament repair, trans-syndesmotic fixation, or combined fixation.MethodsSkeletally mature subjects were retrospectively identified after fixation of isolated unstable distal fibula fractures treated at a single academic level 1 hospital from January 2005 to May 2019. The AAOS Foot and Ankle Module outcomes questionnaire (AAOS-FAM) was obtained at a mean time from surgery of 4.6 +/- 3.1 years. Subjects underwent one of three methods of fixation including distal fibula ORIF and one of the following: trans-syndesmotic fixation (N = 66), deltoid ligament repair (N = 16), or combined trans-syndesmotic fixation and deltoid ligament repair (N = 26). Outcomes scores and Charlson Comorbidity Index scores were compared between groups by Kruskal-Wallis testing for non-normally distributed data. Rates of reoperation were compared by Fisher's exact test. Statistical significance was set to P < 0.05 for all comparisons.ResultsThere was no significant difference in AAOS-FAM scores between the three groups (P = 0.18). No subjects in the deltoid ligament repair group underwent reoperation compared to 17 (26%) in the trans-syndesmotic fixation group and six (23%) in the combined fixation group. The most common reason for reoperation was removal of hardware, which was performed in 12 (18%) subjects in the trans-syndesmotic fixation group and three (12%) subjects in the combined fixation group.ConclusionsDirect deltoid ligament repair yields similar functional scores and fewer reoperations compared to trans-syndesmotic fixation at midterm follow up. Deltoid ligament repair may be a favorable treatment strategy when considering trans-syndesmotic fixation in the surgical treatment of unstable distal fibula fractures.     

Open reduction internal fixation vs. reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of acute displaced proximal humerus fractures

BackgroundProximal humerus fractures are a frequent fragility fracture in the aging population and represent a challenge to the orthopedic surgeon. Open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) of these fractures is viable but technically challenging and associated with a high complication rate. Recently, reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) with tuberosity repair has become a popular and successful option for treating these fractures. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes of ORIF and RTSA for treatment of proximal humerus fractures.MethodsAn age-matched group of 50 patients treated with ORIF (25) and RTSA (25) were assessed at an average follow-up of 4.4 years. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES) and Simple Shoulder Test (SST), radiographs, range of motion, and complications were evaluated between the two groups.ResultsThe reoperation rate and major complications were higher in the ORIF group compared to RTSA. No major complications were observed in the RTSA group. Forward flexion in the RTSA patients (143.2 ± 23.1) was shown to be significantly greater than ORIF patients (121.4 ± 35.1) (p= 0.0125) but no significant differences were observed for shoulder external rotation or internal rotation. There was no difference in ASES and SST scores between groups.ConclusionThe current study demonstrates good clinical outcomes for both RTSA and ORIF. However, reoperation rate was higher with ORIF with locked plating compared to RTSA for fracture with tuberosity repair in an age matched population. RTSA may be a better treatment option than ORIF for 3- and 4-part fractures in patients older than 65.Level of evidenceLevel III     

Outcomes of periprosthetic distal femur fractures following total knee arthroplasty: Intramedullary nailing versus plating

BackgroundPeriprosthetic distal femur fractures (PPDFFs) present a challenge in terms of optimizing fixation in patients with poor bone quality and limited bone stock. The main treatment options include laterally based plating and intramedullary nailing. We hypothesized that treatment of PPDFFs with intramedullary nails would result in improved union rate, fewer complications, and an equivalent rate of malalignment compared to plating.Materials and methodsCases of PPDFFs were identified through a query of our institutional trauma database between 2011-2018. Adult patients (>18 years) were included if they sustained a fracture of the distal femur around a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) that was not initially treated at another institution. The anatomic lateral distal femoral angle (aLDFA) and the anatomic posterior distal femoral angle (aPDFA) were measured on the follow-up radiographs.ResultsNinety-seven PPDFFs in 97 patients, with a mean age of 76 years and 74% female were identified. Plating was used in 74 patients (76%) and 23 patients (24%) were treated with intramedullary nailing. Extension deformity in the sagittal plane was more common following intramedullary nailing compared to plating (10/23 nailing versus 10/74 plating) (p=0.002). There were 12 reoperations (12/75, 16%), and the method of fixation was not associated with rate of reoperation (p=0.9).ConclusionIntramedullary nailing was associated with an increased risk of malalignment, most commonly an extension deformity, in this series. However, malalignment was not associated with worse outcomes.     

Lower reoperation rate with locking plates compared with conventional plates in Vancouver type C periprosthetic femoral fractures: A register study of 639 cases in Sweden

AimTo investigate demographics and outcomes of Vancouver type C periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFF) treated with open reduction and internal fixation.MethodsPatient data were obtained from medical charts of cases reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register and/or from the National Patient Register. Vancouver type C fractures undergoing surgery between 2001 and 2011, in patients who had received their primary THR between 1979 and 2011, were included. Any further reoperation performed between 2001 and 2013 and related to the PPFF constituted the primary outcome.ResultsA total of 632 patients with 639 Vancouver type C fractures were identified. The majority of the patients were women (84%) and they had a fracture distal to a cemented stem (95%). The mean age at the time of fracture was 72 years. Treatment was performed with a locking plate (363 cases), a conventional plate (184 cases), an intramedullary nail (62 cases), or with double plating (30 cases). The overall reoperation rate was 17%, and mortality within one year of the operation was 16%. Locking plates had a significantly lower reoperation rate than conventional plates (p<0.001) and intramedullary nailing (p = 0.005). Interprosthetic femoral fractures did not have a statistically different outcome compared with non-IPFFs.ConclusionsThe lowest reoperation rate was observed using locking plates in Vancouver type C fractures when compared with conventional plates or intramedullary nailing. The presence of an ipsilateral knee prosthesis did not influence the outcome of the surgical treatment.     

Primary Versus Secondary Distal Femoral Arthroplasty for Treatment of Total Knee Arthroplasty Periprosthetic Femur Fractures

Current methods of fixing periprosthetic fractures after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are variable, and include open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) via plating, retrograde nailing, or revision using standard revision TKA components or a distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA). The purpose of this study is to compare patients who failed plating techniques requiring subsequent revision to DFA to patients who underwent primary DFA. Of the 13 patients (9.2%) who failed primary ORIF, causes included nonunion (53.8%), infection (30.8%), loosening (7.7%), and refracture (7.7%). There were significantly more surgical procedures for ORIF revision to DFA compared to primary DFA. Complications for patients who underwent primary reconstruction with DFAs included extensor mechanism disruption (8.3%), infection (5.6%), and dislocation (2.8%). Primary reconstruction via ORIF is beneficial for preserving bone stock, but primary DFA may be preferred in osteopenic patients, or those at high risk for nonunion.     

Treatment of distal tibial fractures: plate versus nail

A study of 24 patients who sustained an extra-articular fracture of the distal third of the tibial shaft was performed to determine the effect of the type of treatment, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or closed reduction and intramedullary (IM) nailing, on the occurrence of malalignment. All patients were treated in our clinic between 1993 and 2001 for a fracture in the distal third of the tibia. Twelve patients treated with ORIF were matched to 12 patients treated with IM nailing, with regard to gender, age decade, and the AO classification of the fracture. The group treated with IM nailing was assessed after a mean 6.0 years versus ORIF after a mean of 4.5 years. Two patients treated with ORIF versus six patients treated with IM nailing had a malalignment of the tibia. Furthermore, we found no difference with regard to time to union, non-union, hardware failure or deep infections between ORIF and IM nailing. Our results suggest that control of alignment is difficult with IM nailing of distal tibial fractures. For optimal alignment we advise considering the use of ORIF for closed and type I open extra-articular fractures in the distal third of the tibia.     

Radiographic and clinical comparisons of distal tibia shaft fractures (4 to 11 cm proximal to the plafond): plating versus intramedullary nailing

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to review distal tibia shaft fractures treated with a plate or a nail and to assess the clinical and radiographic results, complication rates, and the need for secondary procedures. DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Two Level I trauma centers. PATIENT/PARTICIPANTS: We retrospectively reviewed 111 patients with 113 extra-articular distal tibia fractures between 4 and 11 cm proximal to the plafond. Seventy-six were treated with an intramedullary nail and 37 were treated with a medial plate. Twenty-nine (27%) of the concomitant fibula fractures were fixed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Complications and secondary procedures were evaluated in 111 patients after a mean of 24 months (range, 12-84 months). RESULTS: A total of 111 patients with 113 fractures of the distal tibia were reviewed. Their mean age was 39.1 years, 69% were men, and 30% had open fractures. Four patients underwent additional procedures for soft tissue coverage. None of these had infection. Five patients (4.4%) developed osteomyelitis: four after intramedullary nailing (5.3%) and one after plating (2.7%). Nine patients (12%) had delayed union or nonunion after nailing. One patient (2.7%) had a nonunion after plating (P = 0.10). Nonunion was more common after concurrent fixation of the fibula (14% versus 2.6%, P = 0.04). Angular malalignment of > or =5 degrees occurred in 22 patients with nails (29%) and 2 with plates (5.4%, P = 0.003). Eight patients had malunions of > or =10 degrees. Valgus was the most common deformity (n = 16). Malunion was more common after open fracture (38%, P = 0.006) but was not related to fibula fixation. Painful hardware was removed in six patients (7.9%) with nails and in two patients (5.4%) with plates. CONCLUSIONS: Distal tibia fractures may be treated successfully with plates or nails. Delayed union, malunion, and secondary procedures were more frequent after nailing. Randomized prospective assessment may further clarify these issues and provide information about costs associated with these fractures.     

Tibial periprosthetic fractures in Total Knee Arthroplasty – A scoping review

BackgroundPeriprosthetic tibial fractures in Total Knee Arthroplasty are much less commonly seen than femoral fractures, and there is a paucity of available literature and management recommendation for these fractures. We aimed to identify the relevant and up-to-date literature on this subject to analyse the incidence, risk factors, and management recommendations.MethodsA literature search was done on the databases of PubMed and SCOPUS using appropriate keywords. All the published literature in the English language was included for this review.ResultsWe included 21 studies comprising 260 tibial periprosthetic fractures (91 intra-operative (35%) and 169 (65%) post-operative or delayed fractures). Only 5.9% of these fractures were managed conservatively. Whereas 98 cases (58%) were managed with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with plating, 19 (11.2%) were managed with revision TKA. Seventeen cases (10%) were managed with minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis (MIPPO), and 8 (4.7%) were managed with intramedullary nailing. Less than 6% of cases were managed with other means, viz. megaprosthesis (n = 4), arthrodesis (n = 5), amputation (n = 1), and external fixator (n = 1).ConclusionIntraoperative fractures accounted for one-third of the fractures in our review. A majority of the delayed periprosthetic fractures were treated with surgical intervention. The most preferred surgical treatment method was ORIF of fractures using locking plates (either open or MIPPO). Revision TKA or megaprosthesis was used in cases with the loosened implants in association with the fracture.Level of evidenceIV     

Retrospective analysis of locked versus non-locked plating of distal fibula fractures

IntroductionUnstable distal fibular fractures have traditionally been treated with open reduction internal fixation using a 1/3 tubular non-locked plate (compression plating). Locked plating is a newer technique that has become more popular despite the lack of clinical data supporting improved outcomes. The cost of locked plating is almost four times that of compression plating. We compared rates of reoperation due to implant failure, infection, and symptomatic device between compression and locked plating in open reduction internal fixation of distal fibular fracturesMethodsA retrospective study was performed at a level one trauma center over a ten-year period (2008-2017). Patients who were 18 and older and treated for unstable ankle fractures with locking or non-locking plate were included in this study. Patient charts were reviewed by orthopedic trauma surgeons to identify whether patients were treated with a 1/3 tubular non-locking or pre-contoured locked plate and to determine the cause of reoperation.ResultsIn total, 442 patients were identified with 203 in the non-locked 1/3 tubular plate group and 239 in the pre-contoured locked plate group. A total of 38 patients (8.6%) underwent device removal with a higher proportion of patients in the non-locked 1/3 tubular plate cohort (11.3% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.059). Statistically significant differences in reasons for reoperation were found for symptomatic implant (78.3% vs. 46.7%, p = 0.045) and infection (8.7% vs 53.3%., p < 0.01). Of patients who had device removal for symptomatic implant in the compression plating cohort, 13 (72.2%) had lateral positioning and 5 (27.8%) had posterior positioning (p < 0.01) whereas there was no statistical difference in plate positioning in the locked cohort. Of all medical comorbidities identified, only diabetes was associated with a higher rate of infection-related reoperations (83.3% vs. 15.6%, p < 0.01).ConclusionsBoth compression and locked plate techniques demonstrated low reoperation rates. Compression plating with 1/3 tubular plates placed laterally more often resulted in reoperation due to symptomatic implant but had fewer complications of infection. Given that the cost is significantly less, 1/3 tubular plating placed posteriorly may be preferred to decrease the risks of symptomatic implant and infection.     

Nationwide Analysis of Lower Extremity Periprosthetic Fractures

BackgroundAlthough the annual incidence of primary total joint arthroplasty is increasing, trends in the annual incidence of periprosthetic fractures have not been established. This study aimed to define the annual incidence of periprosthetic fractures in the United States.MethodsInpatient admission data for 60,887 surgically treated lower extremity periprosthetic fractures between 2006 and 2015 were obtained from the National Inpatient Sample database. The annual incidence of periprosthetic fractures was defined as the number of new cases per year and presented as a population-adjusted rate per 100,000 US individuals. Univariable methods were used for trend analysis and comparisons between groups.ResultsThe national annual incidence of periprosthetic fractures presented as a population-adjusted rate of new cases per year peaked in 2008 (2.72; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.39-3.05), remained stable from 2010 (1.65; 95% CI, 1.45-1.86) through 2013 (1.67; 95% CI, 1.55-1.8) and increased in 2014 (1.99; 95% CI, 1.85-2.13) and 2015 (2.47; 95% CI, 2.31-2.62). The proportion of femoral periprosthetic fractures managed with total knee arthroplasty revision remained stable (P_trend = .97) with an increase in total hip arthroplasty (THA) revision (P_trend < .001) and concurrent decrease in open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) (P_trend < .001). Revision THA was significantly more costly than revision total knee arthroplasty (P = .004), and both were significantly more costly than ORIF (P < .001 for both).ConclusionThe annual incidence of periprosthetic fractures remained relatively stable throughout our study period. The proportion of periprosthetic fractures managed with revision THA increased, whereas ORIF decreased. Our findings are encouraging considering the significant burden an increase in periprosthetic fracture incidence would present to the health care system in terms of both expense and patient morbidity.     

Open Reduction vs Distal Femoral Replacement Arthroplasty for Comminuted Distal Femur Fractures in the Patients 70 Years and Older

Background

The ideal management of distal femur fractures in the elderly is unclear. Acute arthroplasty has the theoretical advantage of earlier mobilization. We examined the outcomes of patients 70 years and older who underwent open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) vs distal femoral replacement (DFR) for comminuted, intra-articular distal femur fractures.

Surgical Implant Generation Network (SIGN) Fin nail versus SIGN standard intramedullary nail for distal diaphyseal femur fractures treated via retrograde approach

IntroductionSurgical fixation of distal diaphyseal femur fractures remains a major challenge in developing countries given limited availability of fluoroscopy. The Surgical Implant Generation Network (SIGN) Standard Intramedullary Nail and SIGN Fin Nail are two modalities developed to address this challenge; the Fin Nail additionally avoids needing to place proximal interlocking screws. While efficacy of the Standard Nail has been established, outcomes following fixation with the Fin Nail are unknown. In this study, we compare outcomes of distal diaphyseal femur fractures treated with each implant.MethodsA prospective cohort study was conducted from 2012 to 2013 at a single tertiary-referral center in Tanzania. Skeletally mature patients with distal diaphyseal femur fractures treated with either retrograde SIGN Standard Nail or Fin Nail were included. Patients followed-up at 6, 12, 26, and 52 weeks post-operatively. The primary outcome was all-cause reoperation. Secondary outcomes included infection, non-union, malalignment, quality of life (EQ-5D score), pain (VAS score), radiographic healing (RUST score), and function (pain with weight bearing, knee range of motion, and Squat and Smile score).Results74 (85%) of 85 enrolled patients completed the minimum 1-year follow-up. There was no difference in rate of reoperation (p = 1.00), infection (p = 1.00), limb length discrepancy (p = 0.47), non-union (p = 1.00), or coronal or sagittal malalignment (p = 1.00, p = 0.55 respectively) at 1 year. There was furthermore no difference in mean EQ-5D (p = 0.82), VAS pain score (p = 0.43), RUST score (p = 0.44), maximum knee flexion (p = 0.52) and extension (p = 1.00), or Squat and Smile function (p = 1.00) between cohorts at 1 year.DiscussionOutcomes associated with the SIGN Fin Nail are comparable to those associated with the SIGN Standard Intramedullary Nail at 1 year. The SIGN Fin Nail may be useful as an alternative to Standard locked IM nails for fixation of distal diaphyseal femur fractures.