Endoprosthetic reconstruction as a form of limb salvage in the management of malignant disease is common. We present our experience with custom-made distal femoral replacement as a form of limb salvage in the absence of malignancy. 49 cases of distal femoral replacement were identified using the unit database. There were 18 males and 31 females, with a mean age at operation of 62.3 years (range 26–86). There were 29 cases of failed total knee replacements, 8 cases of fracture associated with bone loss, non-union or deformity, 7 periprosthetic fractures, 3 aneurysmal bone cysts, and one case each of avascular necrosis and Gorham’s disease. Clinical and radiographic review of all available patients, including a functional assessment with the Musculoskeletal Tumour Society (MSTS) Score and Toronto Extremity Salvage (TES) score was undertaken. The average follow-up was 5.4 years (range 1 to 29 years). Three types of endoprosthesis were used, rotating hinge, fixed hinge and arthrodesis prosthesis. One patient required amputation at 2 months following post-operative wound infection with methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus and subsequent inability to provide adequate soft tissue coverage. There was one revision at 16 months for deep prosthetic infection. 21 patients were available for functional follow-up. The mean MSTS score was 63.7 (range 16.0–86.7) and the mean TES score was 59.4 (range 9.4–87.5). Custom-made distal femoral replacements have an established role in limb-salvage surgery for malignant disease. This series demonstrates the reconstructive capability of custom prostheses in non-malignant disease, where deformity causes functional embarrassment or when massive bone loss would normally lead to amputation

Distal femoral replacement is an operation long considered as salvage operation for neoplastic conditions. Outcomes of this procedure for difficult knee revisions with bone loss of distal femur have been sparsely reported. We present the early results of complex revision knee arthroplasty using distal femoral replacement implant, performed for severe osteolysis and bone loss. Retrospective review of clinic and radiological results of 25 consecutive patients operated at single centre between January 2010 and December 2014. All patients had single type of implant. All data was collected till the latest follow up. Re-revision for any reason was considered as primary end point. Mean age at surgery was 72.2 years (range 51 – 85 years). Average number of previous knee replacements was 2.28 (range 1 to 6). Most common indications were infection, aseptic loosening and peri-prosthetic fracture. Average follow up was 24.5 months (range: 3–63 months). 1 patient died 8 months post-op due to unrelated reasons. Re-revision rate was 2/25 (8%) during this period. One was re-revised for aseptic loosening and one was revised for peri-prosthetic fracture of femur. Two other peri-prosthetic fractures were managed by open reduction and internal fixation. All 3 peri-prosthetic fractures occurred with low energy trauma. It is noteworthy that there was no hinge or mechanical failures of the implant. Peri-prosthetic fracture in 12% of patients in this series is of concern. There are no similar studies to compare this data with. The length of the stem, type of fixation of the stem, weight of the distal femoral component of implant can be postulated as factors contributing to risk of peri-prosthetic fracture

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

Introduction and Aims: We present a review of the long-term results of custom-made massive unicondylar femoral replacement for reconstruction following tumor excision, and compare the functional outcome of this procedure with prosthetic distal femoral replacement. Method: Using our centre’s endoprosthetic database we identified and analysed all cases of massive unicondylar femoral replacement performed at our unit (group 1). Patients were evaluated for function, (Musculoskeletal Tumour Society System), and for stability (adapted from Oxford Knee Score). An age and sex-matched cohort of patients who had undergone distal femoral replacements for similar pathologies, and in who the follow-up was of a comparable time period (group 2) was evaluated in an identical manner. Statistical analysis was performed on the results. Results: Twelve cases of massive unicondylar replacement have been performed between 1990 and 2001, for a variety of malignant and benign tumors. There have been no incidences of infection, aseptic loosening or tumor recurrence. One patient has died of metastatic disease and another has undergone revision to distal femoral replacement for osteoarthritis. Of the remaining 10 patients, nine were available for assessment. Each of the two groups consisted of five males and four females, with mean age 48 years in group 1 and 49 years in group 2. The average follow-up since surgery in both groups was 10 years. The mean MSTS and stability scores of group 1 were 83% and 3.9 respectively, and 71% and 3.2 for group 2; the difference in scores between groups was statistically significant (p< 0.02). Conclusion: With stringent case selection criteria, the custom-made massive unicondylar femoral replacement produces a good outcome, with functional results significantly better than distal femoral replacement. This may be because a substantial proportion of the knee joint with at least one cruciate and one collateral ligament are kept intact, thus facilitating enhanced proprioception

Introduction: We present a review of the long-term results of custom-made massive unicondylar femoral replacement for reconstruction following tumour excision, and compare the functional outcome of this procedure with prosthetic distal femoral replacement. Method: Using our centre’s endoprosthetic database we identified and analysed all cases of massive unicondylar femoral replacement performed at our unit (group 1). Patients were evaluated for function, (Musculoskeletal Tumour Society System), and for stability (adapted from Oxford Knee Score). An age and sex-matched cohort of patients who had undergone distal femoral replacements for similar pathologies, and in who the follow-up was of a comparable time period (group 2) was evaluated in an identical manner. Statistical analysis was performed on the results. Results: Twelve cases of massive unicondylar replacement have been performed between 1990 and 2001, for a variety of malignant and benign tumours. There have been no incidences of infection, aseptic loosening or tumour recurrence. One patient has died of metastatic disease and another has undergone revision to distal femoral replacement for osteoarthritis. Of the remaining ten patients, nine were available for assessment Each of the two groups consisted of 5 males and 4 females, with mean age 48 years in group 1 and 49 years in group 2. The average follow-up since surgery in both groups was 10 years. The mean MSTS and stability scores of group 1 were 83% and 3.9 respectively, and 71% and 3.2 for group 2; the difference in scores between groups was statistically significant, (p< 0.02). Conclusion: With stringent case selection criteria, the custom-made massive unicondylar femoral replacement generally produces a good outcome, with functional results significantly better than distal femoral replacement. This may be because a substantial proportion of the knee joint with at least one cruciate and one collateral ligament are kept intact, thus facilitating enhanced proprioception

Objective: Modular tumour prostheses are often chosen for the reconstruction of osseous or joint defects following wide tumour resection in limb salvage procedures. In this retrospective trial we were looking for the clinical use in accordance to long-term-follow up especially on aseptic loosening of stem, wear of polyethylene, implant related complications and clinical and functional results. Methods: From 1996 to 2008 we performed in our clinic in 69 cases a modular distal femur replacement (MUTARS) after wide bone or soft tissue tumour resection. In our outpatient clinic we have assessed the clinical follow-up as clinical examination (Enneking-score) and standardized radiological follow-up for 5 years, then once per year. In the focus of interest were aseptic loosening of the stems, wear of polyethylene, and mechanical problems as implant failure. Results: In long-term-follow-up 6 polyethylene locks had to be changed into PEEK locks (8,6%9). PEEK-lock complications were not seen in this series. In 5 cases late infection of the prosthesis occured. In another 5 cases aseptic loosening of the prosthesis was diagnosed, fractures of the stems were not seen. We conclude that in tumour patients with major osseous reconstruction after wide resection a certain loss ob function cannot be avoided, but the rate of complications in the long-term-follow-up after implantation of modular tumour prosthesis is acceptable

Aims

Limb salvage in bone tumour patients replaces the bone with massive segmental prostheses where achieving bone integration at the shoulder of the implant through extracortical bone growth has been shown to prevent loosening. This study investigates the effect of multidrug chemotherapy on extracortical bone growth and early radiological signs of aseptic loosening in patients with massive distal femoral prostheses.

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.

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

Abstract. Introduction. Distal Femoral Fractures around a Total Knee Replacement have a reported incidence of 0.25–2.3% of primary TKRs. Literature suggests that these fractures have high complication rates such as non union and revision. Methodology. A retrospective case note review was undertaken of all patients who sustained a distal femoral fracture around a TKR from April 2014-April 2021. Data parameters collected included patient demographics, classification of fracture, management, post op mobility, fracture union and mortality. Results. 52 distal femoral fractures were recorded, out of which 5 patients had bilateral fractures. The average age was 83.6 years (61–101). 41 fractures were managed operatively with 61% undergoing ORIF, 37% undergoing Distal Femoral Replacement & 2% undergoing a retrograde IM Nail. The median LOS was 22 days (11–85) for patients treated with DFR versus 10 (3–75) for those undergoing an ORIF. 60% of DFR patients were discharged home compared to 56% of those who underwent an ORIF. All the DFR patients were FWB post op compared to ORIF 24%. Conclusion. Over a 7 year study period, 52 distal femoral fractures were reviewed. Despite FWB status post op, patients undergoing a DFR had a longer length of stay and less were discharged home compared to the ORIF group. Given the cost of a distal femoral replacement (£4485-6500) compared to £212-297 for a locking plate, in order to get patients FWB post operatively potentially dual plating (medial and lateral) may need to be considered if the fracture is amenable to improve stability & allow FWB

Abstract. Introduction. Patients presenting with loosening or a fracture between ipsilateral hip and knee replacements provide a unique reconstructive challenge. We present mid-term results of the cement-over megaprosthesis (COM) when managing these complex cases. A COM is cement-linked to the stem of a well-fixed existing implant. We report the largest series to date and show that this may be preferable to total femoral replacement in a cohort of patients who often have significant co-morbidities. Methodology. A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing COM between 2002–2022 was performed. Primary outcomes were defined as implant survival, displayed with survival analysis. Secondary outcomes included mortality and surgical complications. Functional outcomes included Visual Analogue Score (VAS), EuroQol-5D-3L and Musculoskeletal Tumour Society (MSTS) score at one year post operatively. Results. 34 patients underwent reconstructive cement-over technique. There were 20 custom distal femur replacements and 10 custom proximal femoral replacements. Two patients were revised, with a ten year implant survival of 94%. Fifteen patients died during the study period with an mean time to death of 66 months (25–109). The mean follow up was 75 months. 11 patients (32%) developed surgical complications. Mean VAS score was 4.9 (1–10), EuroQol-5D-3L index 0.45 (−0.59 – 0.88) and MSTS score was 16.8 (2–27) in 29 patients. Conclusion. The COM technique provides good implant survivorship in complex cases with compromised bone stock and this series confirms this as an established alternative to total femoral replacement in these cases

Introduction:. Distal femoral replacement is recognised as the optimum treatment for malignant distal femoral tumours. Aseptic loosening is known to be a major cause for failure in these implants. Studies have indicated that the HA coated collar promotes osteointegration and bony in growth. This study compares long term aseptic loosening in implants with HA coated collars to those without in the immature skeleton. Objectives:. To assess the effect of HA coated collars on aseptic loosening in extendable distal femoral replacement prosthesis in the immature skeleton. Methods:. All paediatric patients undergoing distal femoral replacement with extendable prosthesis were retrospectively reviewed between 1980–2003. A total of 32 patients were reviewed. 24 patients underwent distal femoral replacement with extendable prostheses without a HA coated collar. This cohort was compared to 18 patients who were treated with an extendable prosthesis with a HA coated collar between 2001–03. Average follow up in patients without a collar was 10.1 yrs (6–18) and 8.1 yrs in those with a collar (4–11). All patients with identified infection were excluded. Radiographs taken at last follow-up were analysed for loosening. Results:. Thirty-one patients were treated for primary osteosarcoma and one for a histiocytoma. Average age at operation was 13 yrs for both groups (non-collared 6–17, collared 4–11). Three of 24 patients in the non-collared cohort underwent revision compared to 1 of 18 in the collared group. The cause of revision in the collared group was infection. One patient in each cohort died within 5 years of surgery. Mean loosening score at last follow up for the non-collared group was 11.2 compared to 2.5 for the collared group with a p value of <0.05 (Mann Whitney-U). Conclusions:. Aseptic loosening is a major cause of failure for distal femoral replacement prosthesis. HA coated collars have been shown to promote osteointegration. Little comparable data exists between collared and non-collared extendable prosthesis in the immature skeleton. Our data demonstrates that HA coated collars significantly reduce long term loosening in the immature skeleton

Abstract. Background. The incidence of periprosthetic fractures of the femur around a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is rising and this is owed to the increased longevity that today's TKA implants allow for, as well as an aging population. These injuries are significant as they are related to increased morbidity and mortality. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed all periprosthetic fractures around a TKA that presented to our NHS Trust between 2011 to 2020. Medical records were reviewed. Treatment, complications and mortality were noted. Results. 37 patients (34 females) with an average age of 84 (range 65–99) met the inclusion criteria for this study. 17 patients (45.9%) underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), eight patients (21.6%) underwent revision arthroplasty to a distal femoral replacement (DFR) and 12 patients (32.4%) were treated non-operatively. 10 (58.8%) of the 17 patients that were treated with ORIF were discharged from hospital to a rehabilitation facility rather than their usual residence. In comparison, 3 (37.5%) of the patients that were treated with a DFR were discharged to a rehabilitation facility. one-year mortality rate in the ORIF group was 29.4 compared to 12.5% in those that had a DFR. Conclusion. Revision arthroplasty using a DFR should be considered in patients with periprosthetic fractures around a TKR, as it is associated with lower mortality rates and higher immediate post-operative function

Aim. Repeat revision surgery of total hip or knee replacement may lead to massive bone loss of the femur. If these defects exceed a critical amount a stable fixation of a proximal or distal femur replacement may not be possible. In these extraordinary cases a total femur replacement (TFR) may be used as an option for limb salvage. In this retrospective study we examined complications, revision free survival (RFS), amputation free survival (AFS) and risk factors for decreased RFS and AFS following a TRF in cases of revision arthroplasty with a special focus on periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Method. We included all implantations of a TFR in revision surgery from 2006–2018. Patients with a primary implantation of a TFR for oncological indications were not included. Complications were classified using the Henderson Classification. Primary endpoints were revision of the TFR or disarticulation of the hip. The minimum follow up was 24 month. RFS and AFS were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method, patients´ medical history was analyzed for possible risk factors for decreased RFS and AFS. Results. After applying the inclusion criteria 58 cases of a TFR in revision surgery were included with a median follow-up of 48.5 month. The median age at surgery was 68 years and the median amount of prior surgeries was 3. A soft tissue failure (Henderson Type I) appeared in 16 cases (28%) of which 13 (22%) needed revision surgery. A PJI of the TFR (Henderson Type IV) appeared in 32 cases (55%) resulting in 18 (31%) removals of the TFR and implantation of a total femur spacer. Disarticulation of the hip following a therapy resistant PJI was performed in 17 cases (29%). The overall 2-year RFS was 36% (95% confidence interval(CI) 24–48%). Patients with a Body mass Index (BMI) >30kg/m² had a decreased RFS after 24 month (>30kg/m² 11% (95%CI 0–25%) vs. <30kg/m² 50% (95%CI 34–66%)p<0.01). The overall AFS after 5 years was 68% (95%CI 54–83%). A PJI of the TFR and a BMI >30kg/m² was significantly correlated with a lower 5-year AFS (PJI 46% (95%CI 27–66%) vs no PJI 100%p<0.001) (BMI >30kg/m² 30% (95% KI 3–57%) vs. <30km/m² 85% (95% KI 73–98%)p<0.01). Conclusions. A TFR in revision arthroplasty is a valuable option for limb salvage but complications in need of further revision surgery are common. Patients with a BMI >30kg/m² should be informed regarding the increased risk for revision surgery and loss of extremity before operation

Peri-prosthetic fractures above a TKA are becoming increasingly more common, and typically occur at the junction of the anterior flange of the femoral component and the osteopenic metaphyseal distal femur. In the vast majority of cases, the TKA is well fixed and has been functioning well prior to fracture. For fractures above well-fixed components, internal fixation is preferred. Fixation options include retrograde nailing or lateral plating. Nails are typically considered in arthroplasties that allow intercondylar access (“open box PS” or CR implants) and have sufficient length of the distal fragment to allow multiple locking screws to be used. This situation is rare, as most distal fragments are quite short. If a nail is chosen, use of a long nail is preferred, since it allows the additional fixation and alignment that diaphyseal fill affords. Short nails should be discouraged since they can “toggle” in the meta-diaphysis and do not engage the diaphysis to improve coronal alignment. Plates can be used with any implant type and any length of distal fragment. The challenge with either fixation strategy is obtaining stable fixation of the distal fragment while maintaining length, alignment, and rotation. Fixation opportunities in the distal fragment can be limited due to obstacles caused by femoral component lugs, boxes, stems, cement mantles, and areas of stress shielding or osteolysis. Modern lateral locked plates can be inserted in a biologically friendly submuscular extra-periosteal fashion. The goal of fixation is to obtain as many long locked screws in the distal fragment as possible. High union rates have been reported with modern locked plating and nailing techniques, however, biplanar fluoroscopic vigilance is required to prevent malalignments, typically valgus, distraction, and distal fragment hyperextension. For certain fractures, distal femoral replacement (DFR) is a wise choice. The author reserves DFR for situations where internal fixation is likely to fail (severe distal osteolysis, severe osteopenia) or for cases where it has already failed (nonunion). Obviously, if the implant is loose, revision is indicated, and typically the distal bone loss is so severe that a distal femoral replacement is indicated. The author prefers cemented constructs and routinely adds antibiotics to the cement mixture. Careful attention to posterior dissection of the distal fragment is recommended to avoid neurovascular injury. Cementing the femoral component in the proper amount of external rotation is important to allow central patellar tracking. The available literature demonstrates excellent functional results with these reconstructions, however, complications are not uncommon. Infection and extensor mechanism complications are the most frequent complications and are best avoided. In summary, ORIF remains the treatment of choice for these fractures, however, for cases where ORIF is likely to fail, or has failed, DFR remains a predictable salvage option

PURPOSE OF STUDY. Periprosthetic fractures after total knee arthroplasty is a potentially serious and challenging complication and the incidence is continuously rising. The purpose of this study was to analyse the prevalence and analyse effectiveness of the various treatment methods for management of periprosthetic fracture of the distal femur after total knee arthroplasty, and to determine the clinical and radiographic results of patients following surgical treatment of these injuries. METHODS. We reviewed all patients with periprosthetic fractures after total knee arthroplasty treated surgically between 2003 and 2008 from the prospective hospital database. Medical and radiographic records were reviewed for patient characteristics, fracture characteristics, implant details, healing, and complications. Antero-posterior and lateral radiographs were reviewed at the time of admission, post-operatively and at follow up visits. Fractures were classified according to the Lewis and Rorabeck, Orthopaedic Trauma Association and the methods of Su and DeWal. RESULTS. 26 patients (average age= 77.6) had operative management for displaced fractures. Mechanical fall was the commonest mode of injury at a mean of 4.66 years post primary replacement. Locking plates was the commonest method of fixation for stable implant and displaced fractures [Lewis & Rorabeck type 2] and 2 patients had distal femoral replacements for unstable implants. Successful fracture healing within 6 months occurred in all but one patient. Full weight bearing mobilisation was achieved at 3 months in 94% and patients with distal femoral replacements achieved quickest recovery. CONCLUSIONS. Compared to the current literature, we had a satisfactory outcome in following individualised treatment of periprosthetic fractures after knee joint replacement. Periprosthetic femoral fractures around the knee commonly constitute a challenging problem and require an adequate analysis of fracture etiology and distal femoral replacement achieves satisfactory results in fractures with unstable implants

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

Peri-prosthetic distal femoral fractures around total knee replacement is a highly complex reconstructive challenge, particularly in the presence of bone comminution and poor bone quality in elderly patients. With the incidence of peri-prosthetic fractures ranging from 0.3% to 2.5%, this is becoming a common problem. Older patients with concomitant medical issues have a very limited tolerance for prolonged immobilisation. It is the author's practice to revise, rather that attempt to fix, peri-prosthetic fractures of the knee which are very close to the femoral or tibial implants, particularly when associated with osteoporosis and comminution. When compared to fracture fixation, distal femoral replacement has significantly shorter operative time, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay. Patients have been shown to recover faster, have fewer complications, and left hospital sooner. The general assumption has been that the use of a distal femoral replacement prosthesis is cost prohibitive in revision total knee settings, however, initial differences in the price of the prosthesis are more than offset by a shortened hospital stay and a more rapid return to pre-fracture level of function

Introduction. The prevalence of ipsilateral total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is rising in concert with life expectancy, putting more patients at risk for interprosthetic femur fractures (IPFF). Our study aimed to assess treatment methodologies, implant survivorship, and clinical outcomes of patients with IPFF. Methods. 77 patients treated for an IPFF from 1985–2017 at a single large referral center were reviewed. Prior to the fracture, at the hip/knee sites respectively 46 femurs had primary/primary, 21 had revision/primary, 3 had primary/revision and 7 had revision/revision components. Mean age and BMI were 74 years and 30 kg/m. 2. , respectively. Mean follow-up after fracture treatment was 7 years. Results. Sixty fractures were classified as Vancouver C (UCS D) while 17 were Vancouver B (UCS B). Fifty-seven patients (74%) were treated with ORIF; 3 developed a non-union, 3 developed a PJI, and 2 developed aseptic loosening. Nineteen patients (25%) were treated with revision arthroplasty including: 13 revision THAs, 4 distal femoral replacements, 1 revision TKA, and 1 total femoral replacement of which 2 developed aseptic loosening and 2 developed a non-union. Survivorship free from any reoperation for the entire cohort was 79% at 2 years. Patients in the ORIF group who went on to union tended to have stemmed components and greater interprosthetic distance (IPD=189mm vs. 163mm, p=0.55) than non-united fractures. Patients who went on to nonunion in the revision arthroplasty group had higher medullary diameter: cortical width ratio (2.5 vs. 1.3, p=0.01) and lower IPD (36mm vs. 202mm, p=0.002). 95% of patients were ambulatory at latest follow-up. Conclusion. Interprosthetic femur fractures are technically and biologically challenging cases. An individualized approach of internal fixation versus revision arthroplasty led to a 79% success rate free of reoperation at 2 years with 95% of patients ambulatory. Continued improvements in management are warranted

Over the last decade, the number of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has risen over 125%. Numerous studies have established a relationship between obesity and complications in primary TKA. Interestingly, few studies have investigated medical and orthopaedic complications in obese patients undergoing revision TKA (RTKA). With the increasing number of RTKA and with the prevalence of obesity still on the rise, the study of obesity on complications following RTKA is indicated. We retrospectively reviewed 180 RTKA performed by a single surgeon done between August 2008 and June 2017. All patients who underwent RTKA were included, but revisions done with simultaneous extensor mechanism reconstruction and/or distal femur replacement were excluded since these procedures are technically more demanding. 154 revisions met our inclusion/exclusion criteriaes and were included in the final analysis. 81 patients were included in the non-obese group (BMI . The total number of orthopaedic complications in the obese group (46.6%) was significantly higher than in the non-obese group (27.2%) (OR=1.71) (p = 0.01). The number of infection was higher in the obese group (11%) than in the non-obese (6.2%) but this was not statistically significant (OR=1.77) (p = 0.28). Reoperation rate was also higher in the obese group (23.3%) than in the non-obese group (16%) but this did not reach statistical significance (OR=1.46) (p = 0.26) (Table 3). Medical complications were higher in the obese group (31.5% vs 19.8%) (OR=1.59) (p=0.09). According to the Dindo-Clavien classification, the obese group demonstrated a significantly higher rate of grade 3 or higher complications (p = 0.01). Obesity significantly increases the occurrence of orthopaedic complications following RTKA. Obesity also seems to increase the number of medical complications following RTKA. The obese patient should be informed prior to revision TKA that there is an increased risk of complications when compared with the non-obese patient. Further research with higher power would seem advisable to confirm this trend. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly