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). Methods. 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. Results. Follow-up was at mean 3.8 years (1.0 to 10.4). One-year mortality was 13% (8/60). Reoperation was more common following LLP-ORIF: 7/33 versus 0/27 (p = 0.008). Five-year survival for reoperation was significantly better following DFA; 100% compared to 70.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 51.8% to 89.8%, p = 0.006). There was no difference for the endpoint mechanical failure (including radiological loosening); ORIF 74.5% (56.3 to 92.7), and DFA 78.2% (52.3 to 100, p = 0.182). Reoperation following LLP-ORIF was independently associated with medial comminution; hazard ratio (HR) 10.7 (1.45 to 79.5, p = 0.020). Anatomical reduction was protective against reoperation; HR 0.11 (0.013 to 0.96, p = 0.046). When inadequately fixed fractures were excluded, there was no difference in five-year survival for either reoperation (p = 0.156) or mechanical failure (p = 0.453). Conclusion. Absolute reoperation rates are higher following LLP fixation of low PDFFs compared to DFA. Where LLP-ORIF was well performed with augmentation of medial comminution, there was no difference in survival compared to DFA. Though necessary in very low fractures, DFA should be used with caution in patients with greater life expectancies due to the risk of longer term aseptic loosening. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):635–643

Aims. 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). Methods. 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. Results. A total of 111 PDFFs (111 patients, median age 82 years (interquartile range (IQR) 75 to 88), 86% female) with 32 (29%) Su classification 1, 37 (34%) Su 2, and 40 (37%) Su 3 fractures were included. The median follow-up was 2.5 years (IQR 1.2 to 5.0). DP, SP, and DFA were used in 15, 66, and 30 patients, respectively. Compared to SP, patients treated with DP were more likely to have metaphyseal comminution (47% vs 14%; p = 0.009), to be low fractures (47% vs 11%; p = 0.009), and to be anatomically reduced (100% vs 71%; p = 0.030). Patients selected for DFA displayed comparable amounts of medial/metaphyseal comminution as those who underwent DP. At a minimum follow-up of two years, revision surgery for failure was performed in 11 (9.9%) cases at a median of five months (IQR 2 to 9): 0 DP patients (0%), 9 SP (14%), and 2 DFA (6.7%) (p = 0.249). Conclusion. Using a strategy of DP fixation in fractures, where the fracture was low but there was enough distal bone to accommodate locking screws, and where there is metaphyseal comminution, resulted in equivalent survival free from revision or reoperation compared to DFA and SP fixation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(6):489–498

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

It is unclear whether there is a limit to the amount of distal bone required to support fixation of supracondylar periprosthetic femoral fractures. This retrospective multicentre study evaluated lateral locked plating of periprosthetic supracondylar femoral fractures and compared the results according to extension of the fracture distal with the proximal border of the femoral prosthetic component.

Between 1999 and 2008, 89 patients underwent lateral locked plating of a supracondylar periprosthetic femoral fracture, of whom 61 patients with a mean age of 72 years (42 to 96) comprising 53 women, were available after a minimum follow-up of six months or until fracture healing. Patients were grouped into those with fractures located proximally (28) and those with fractures that extended distal to the proximal border of the femoral component (33).

Delayed healing and nonunion occurred respectively in five (18%) and three (11%) of more proximal fractures, and in two (6%) and five (15%) of the fractures with distal extension (p = 0.23 for delayed healing; p = 0.72 for nonunion, Fisher’s exact test). Four construct failures (14%) occurred in more proximal fractures, and three (9%) in fractures with distal extension (p = 0.51). Of the two deep infections that occurred in each group, one resolved after surgical debridement and antibiotics, and one progressed to a nonunion.

Extreme distal periprosthetic supracondylar fractures of the femur are not a contra-indication to lateral locked plating. These fractures can be managed with internal fixation, with predictable results, similar to those seen in more proximal fractures.