Aim. A case series with functional and radiographic outcomes, of modular endoprosthetic distal femoral replacement in complex cases of periprosthetic fracture. Method. Sixteen cases were identified of endoprosthetic replacement (EPR) from the bone and soft tissue cancer implant registry. A retrospective review was undertaken. Results. There were 11 periprosthetic fractures of total knee arthroplasty, 3 revision arthroplasty cases, and 3 cases of distal femoral fracture. Of which four were complicated by infection. AKSS scores ranged from 62-100, average 82, with 6 month minimum follow up. There were two post operative infections, both successfully treated. One femoral component required exchange for aseptic loosening at two years. Conclusion. EPR is an effective surgical procedure for complex cases with a demonstrable good functional outcome

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

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).

Fractures around total knee arthroplasties pose a significant surgical challenge. Most can be managed with osteosynthesis and salvage of the replacement. The techniques of fixation of these fractures and revision surgery have evolved and so has the assessment of outcome. This specialty update summarises the current evidence for the classification, methods of fixation, revision surgery and outcomes of the management of periprosthetic fractures associated with total knee arthroplasty.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1489–96.