The purpose of this study was to compare reoperation and revision rates of double plating (DP), single plating using a lateral locking plate (SP), or distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA) for the treatment of periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PDFFs). All patients with PDFF primarily treated with DP, SP, or DFA between 2008 and 2022 at a university teaching hospital were included in this retrospective cohort study. The primary outcome was revision surgery for failure following DP, SP, or DFA. Secondary outcome measures included any reoperation, length of hospital stay, and mortality. All basic demographic and relevant implant and injury details were collected. Radiological analysis included fracture classification and evaluation of metaphyseal and medial comminution.Aims
Methods
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). This was a retrospective cohort study of 60 consecutive unilateral (PDFFs) of Su types II (40/60) and III (20/60) in patients aged ≥ 60 years: 33 underwent LLP-ORIF (mean age 81.3 years (SD 10.5), BMI 26.7 (SD 5.5); 29/33 female); and 27 underwent DFA (mean age 78.8 years (SD 8.3); BMI 26.7 (SD 6.6); 19/27 female). The primary outcome measure was reoperation. Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications, calculated blood loss, transfusion requirements, functional mobility status, length of acute hospital stay, discharge destination and mortality. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed. Cox multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for reoperation after LLP-ORIF.Aims
Methods
We reviewed 1567 elective knee replacements performed between 1980 and 1990, using either the Total Condylar prosthesis with an all-plastic tibial component, or the Kinematic prosthesis which has a metal tibial tray. The ten-year probability of survival was 92.1% for the Total Condylar design and 87.9% for the Kinematic. The difference was mainly due to 16 revisions required in the Kinematic series for fracture of the metal base-plate. This was the most common cause of aseptic failure in this group. These fractures were strongly associated with a preoperative varus deformity (hazard ratio (HR) 8.8) and there was a slightly increased risk in males (HR 1.9) and in osteoarthritic knees (HR 1.8). In the nine fractures which occurred within four years of primary implantation (group 1), failure to correct adequately a preoperative varus deformity and the use of a bone graft to correct such a deformity were both strongly associated with fracture (HR 13.9 and 15.8, respectively). In eight fractures which occurred more than five years after primary replacement (group 2) we could detect no significant risk factors. Early complications occurred in two patients after the 16 revision procedures for tray fracture. One had a deep infection and the other
