header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

General Orthopaedics

OUTCOMES OF SINGLE VERSUS COMBINATION FIXATION IN DISTAL FEMUR FRACTURES: A CHRISTCHURCH EXPERIENCE

The New Zealand Orthopaedic Association (NZOA) Annual Scientific Meeting 2023, Nelson, New Zealand, 5–7 November 2023.



Abstract

Introduction

Distal femur fractures have traditionally been stabilized with either lateral locking plate or retrograde intramedullary nail. Dual-plates and nail-plate combination fixation have the theoretical biomechanical advantage, faster union and allows patients to weight bear immediately.

The aim of this study is to compare single vs combination fixation, and evaluate outcomes and complications.

Method

We retrospectively reviewed all patients over 60, admitted to Christchurch Hospital, between 1st Jan 2016 and 31st Dec 2022, with an AO 33A/33B/33C distal femur fracture. Patient demographics, fracture characteristics, operation details, and follow up data were recorded.

Primary outcomes are union rate, ambulatory status at discharge, and surgical complications. Secondary outcomes include quality of reduction, operation time and rate of blood transfusions.

Results

114 patients were included. (92 single fixation, 22 combination fixation).

Baseline demographic data and fracture characteristics did not differ between the cohorts.

There was no difference in the rate of union or time to union between the two cohorts. Combination fixation patients were allowed to weight-bear as tolerated significantly more than single fixation patients (50% vs 18.9%, p=0.003). There was no difference in length of hospital stay, transfusion, complication and mortality rates.

Medial translation of the distal articular block was significantly lower in the combination fixation cohort (1.2% vs 3.4%, p=0.021). Operation time was significantly longer in the combination fixation cohort (183mins vs 134mins, p<0.001).

Discussion

The results show no difference in achieving union or time to union, despite better quality of fracture reduction with dual fixation. This differs to previously published literature. The clear benefit of combination fixation is immediate weight-bearing. As expected, operation times were longer with combination fixation, however this did not translate to more complications.

Conclusion

Combination fixation allows earlier weight bearing, at the cost of longer operation times.