Introduction. Distal femur fracture fixation in elderly presents significant challenges due to osteoporosis and associated comorbidities. There has been an evolution in the management of these fractures with a description of various surgical techniques and fixation methods; however, currently, there is no consensus on the standard of care. Non-union rates of up to 19% and mortality rates of up to 26 % at one year have been reported in the literature. Delay in surgery and delay in mobilisation post-operatively have been identified as two main factors for high rate of mortality. As biomechanical studies have proved better stability with dual plating or nail-plate combination, a trend has been shifting for past few years towards rigid fixation to allow early mobilisation. Our study aims to compare outcomes of distal femur fractures managed with either single plate (SP), dual plating (DP) or nail-plate construct (NP). Methods. A retrospective review of patients aged above 65 years with distal femur fractures (both native and peri-prosthetic) who underwent surgical management between June 2020 and May 2023 was conducted. Patients were divided into three groups based on mode of fixation - single plate or dual plating or nail-plate construct. AO/OTA classification was used for non-periprosthetic, and Unified classification system (UCS) was used for periprosthetic fractures. Data on patient demographics, fracture characteristics, surgical details, postoperative complications, re-operation rate, radiological outcomes and mortality rate were evaluated. Primary objective was to compare re-operation rate and mortality rate between 3 groups at 30 days, 6 months and at 1 year. Results. A cohort of 32 patients with distal femur fractures were included in this study. 91% were females and mean age was 80.97 (range 68–97). 18 (53%) were non-periprosthetic fracture and 14 (47%) were periprosthetic fractures.18 patients underwent single plate fixation (AO/OTA 33A – 8, 33B/C – 2, UCS V3B – 5, V3C – 3),10 patients had dual plate fixation (AO/OTA 33A – 1, 33B/C – 4, UCS V3B – 3, V3C – 2) and 4 patients underwent nail-plate combination fixation (AO/OTA 33A – 4). 70.5% patients had surgery within 36 hours of admission and 90% within 48 hours. Analysis showed no re-operation at 30 days, 6 months in all 3 groups. At 1 year one patient had re-operation in dual-plating periprosthetic group (Distal femur replacement done for failed fixation). Three patients (16%) in single plate group had re-operation at 2 years (2 for peri-implant fracture and 1 for infection). None of the patients treated with Nail-plate combination had re-operation. Mortality rate at 30 days was 0% in among all the 3 groups. At 6 months, it was 16% in single plate group and 0% in DP and NP groups at 6 months and at 1 year mortality rate was 27% in SP group, 10% in DP and 0% in NP group. Combined mortality rate was 0% at 30 days, 9% at 6 months and 18.7% at one year. Conclusion. Our analysis provides insights into fixation methods of distal femur fractures in elderly patients. We conclude that a lower re-operation rate and mortality rate can be achieved with early surgery and rigid fixation with either dual plating or nail-plate construct to allow early mobilisation. Further prospective studies are warranted to confirm these findings and guide the selection of optimal surgical strategies for these challenging fractures

A large number of classification systems exist to assist in the evaluation and treatment of periprosthetic fractures following joint replacement. They vary in the language or categorisation they employ, the joints to which they are differently applied, the factors they assess, and the hierarchy or importance assigned to those factors. Not all incorporate the three most important variables which should govern treatment (fracture location, implant fixation, bone quality), nor the factors which have been demonstrated to most prominently influence outcomes. To a greater or lesser extent they attempt to include the principles of the Vancouver Classification System, and yet they differ in ways that lead to awkwardness in their application within the clinical setting. As an example, for fractures of the patella alone, three different systems have been proposed. As the result of an international effort endorsed by the AO/OTA, the Universal Classification System, or UCS, has been developed. It incorporates the most important factors that should influence evaluation, treatment, and outcomes evaluation. It applies the system to the musculoskeletal system as a whole, regardless of the joint involved or the bone that is broken. And it uses a single common language to describe the injury and prescribe the logical principles of treatment. It is hoped the UCS will appeal to our colleagues worldwide and will assist all of us in the care of our patients who suffer a periprosthetic fracture after joint replacement; be that the hip, knee, ankle, shoulder, elbow or wrist. The UCS can be applied with equal ease and merit to all