Clinical outcomes of locked plating of distal femoral fractures in a retrospective cohort

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

Scott J Koenig³  Paul Tornetta³  Debra L Sietsema¹  Clifford B Jones¹  Martin F Hoffmann² 

[1] Michigan State University/Orthopaedic Associates of Michigan, 230 Michigan St. NE, Grand Rapids MI 49503, USA;Universitaetsklinikum Bergmannsheil, Bürkle-de-la-Camp-Platz 1, 44789, Bochum, Germany;Boston Medical Center, 88 East Newton Street, Boston MA 02118, USA

关键词: Outcome;    Locked plating;    Supracondylar;    Fracture;    Femur;   

Others  :  814336
DOI  :  10.1186/1749-799X-8-43

 received in 2013-06-11, accepted in 2013-11-18,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Purpose

Locked plating (LP) of distal femoral fractures has become very popular. Despite technique suggestions from anecdotal and some early reports, knowledge about risk factors for failure, nonunion (NU), and revision is limited. The purpose of this study was to analyze the complications and clinical outcomes of LP treatment for distal femoral fractures.

Materials and methods

From two trauma centers, 243 consecutive surgically treated distal femoral fractures (AO/OTA 33) were retrospectively identified. Of these, 111 fractures in 106 patients (53.8% female) underwent locked plate fixation. They had an average age of 54 years (range 18 to 95 years): 34.2% were obese, 18.9% were smokers, and 18.9% were diabetic. Open fractures were present in 40.5% with 79.5% Gustilo type III. Fixation constructs for plate length, working length, and screw concentration were delineated. Nonunion and/or infection, and implant failure were used as outcome complication variables. Outcome was based on surgical method and addressed according to Pritchett for reduction, range of motion, and pain.

Results

Eighty-three (74.8%) of the fractures healed after the index procedure. Twenty (18.0%) of the patients developed a NU. Four of 20 (20%) resulted in a recalcitrant NU. Length of comminution did not correlate to NU (p = 0.180). Closed injuries had a higher tendency to heal after the index procedure than open injuries (p = 0.057). Closed and minimally open (Gustilo/Anderson types I and II) fractures healed at a significantly higher rate after the index procedure compared to type III open fractures (80.0% versus 61.3%, p = 0.041). Eleven fractures (9.9%) developed hardware failure. Fewer nonunions were found in the submuscular group (10.7%) compared to open reduction (32.0%) (p = 0.023). Fractures above total knee arthroplasties had a significantly greater rate of failed hardware (p = 0.040) and worse clinical outcome according to Pritchett (p = 0.040). Loss of fixation was related to pain (F = 3.19, p = 0.046) and a tendency to worse outcome (F = 2.43, p = 0.071). No relationship was found between nonunion and working length.

Conclusion

Despite modern fixation techniques, distal femoral fractures often result in persistent disability and worse clinical outcomes. Soft tissue management seems to be important. Submuscular plate insertion reduced the nonunion rate. Preexisting total knee arthroplasty increased the risk of hardware failure. Further studies determining factors that improve outcome are warranted.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Hoffmann et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Court-Brown CM, Caesar B: Epidemiology of adult fractures: a review. Injury 2006, 37:691-697.
• [2]Martinet O, Cordey J, Harder Y, Maier A, Buhler M, Barraud GE: The epidemiology of fractures of the distal femur. Injury 2000, 31(Suppl 3):C62-C63.
• [3]Wahnert D, Hoffmeier K, Frober R, Hofmann GO, Muckley T: Distal femur fractures of the elderly—different treatment options in a biomechanical comparison. Injury 2011, 42:655-659.
• [4]Jahangir AA, Cross WW, Schmidt AH: Current management of distal femoral fractures. Current Orthopaedic Practice 2010, 21:193-197.
• [5]Kregor PJ, Stannard J, Zlowodzki M, Cole PA, Alonso J: Distal femoral fracture fixation utilizing the Less Invasive Stabilization System (L.I.S.S.): the technique and early results. Injury 2001, 32(Suppl 3):SC32-SC47.
• [6]Chan DB, Jeffcoat DM, Lorich DG, Helfet DL: Nonunions around the knee joint. Int Orthop 2010, 34:271-281.
• [7]Ricci WM, Loftus T, Cox C, Borrelli J: Locked plates combined with minimally invasive insertion technique for the treatment of periprosthetic supracondylar femur fractures above a total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Trauma 2006, 20:190-196.
• [8]Gaines RJ, Sanders R, Sagi HC, Haidukewych GJ: Titanium versus stainless steel locked plates for distal femur fractures: is there any difference? In In OTA. Denver; 2008. [Annual Meeting] Paper no. 55
• [9]Cain PR, Rubash HE, Wissinger HA, McClain EJ: Periprosthetic femoral fractures following total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986, 208:205-214.
• [10]Bolhofner BR, Carmen B, Clifford P: The results of open reduction and internal fixation of distal femur fractures using a biologic (indirect) reduction technique. J Orthop Trauma 1996, 10:372-377.
• [11]Kristensen O, Nafei A, Kjaersgaard-Andersen P, Hvid I, Jensen J: Long-term results of total condylar knee arthroplasty in rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1992, 74:803-806.
• [12]Pritchett JW: Supracondylar fractures of the femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1984, 184:173-177.
• [13]Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J, Broderick JS, Creevey W, DeCoster TA, Prokuski L, Sirkin MS, Ziran B, Henley B, Audige L: Fracture and dislocation classification compendium - 2007: Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification, database and outcomes committee. J Orthop Trauma 2007, 21:S1-S133.
• [14]Gwathmey FW Jr, Jones-Quaidoo SM, Kahler D, Hurwitz S, Cui Q: Distal femoral fractures: current concepts. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2010, 18:597-607.
• [15]Nasr AM, Mc Leod I, Sabboubeh A, Maffulli N: Conservative or surgical management of distal femoral fractures. A retrospective study with a minimum five year follow-up. Acta Orthop Belg 2000, 66:477-483.
• [16]Herrera DA, Kregor PJ, Cole PA, Levy BA, Jonsson A, Zlowodzki M: Treatment of acute distal femur fractures above a total knee arthroplasty: systematic review of 415 cases (1981–2006). Acta Orthop 2008, 79:22-27.
• [17]Henderson CE, Kuhl LL, Fitzpatrick DC, Marsh JL: Locking plates for distal femur fractures: is there a problem with fracture healing? J Orthop Trauma 2011, 25(Suppl 1):S8-S14.
• [18]Henderson CE, Lujan TJ, Kuhl LL, Bottlang M, Fitzpatrick DC, Marsh JL: Mid-America Orthopaedic Association Physician in Training Award: healing complications are common after locked plating for distal femur fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, 2011(469):1757-1765.
• [19]Markmiller M, Konrad G, Sudkamp N: Femur-LISS and distal femoral nail for fixation of distal femoral fractures: are there differences in outcome and complications? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004, 426:252-257.
• [20]Rorabeck CH, Taylor JW: Classification of periprosthetic fractures complicating total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 1999, 30:209-214.
• [21]Corrales LA, Morshed S, Bhandari M, Miclau T 3rd, Morshed S, Corrales L, Genant H, Miclau T 3rd: Variability in the assessment of fracture-healing in orthopaedic trauma studies. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008, 90:1862-1868.
• [22]Phieffer LS, Goulet JA: Delayed unions of the tibia. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006, 88:206-216.
• [23]Henderson CE, Lujan T, Bottlang M, Fitzpatrick DC, Madey SM, Marsh JL: Stabilization of distal femur fractures with intramedullary nails and locking plates: differences in callus formation. Iowa Orthop J 2010, 30:61-68.
• [24]Kubiak EN, Fulkerson E, Strauss E, Egol KA: The evolution of locked plates. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006, 88(Suppl 4):189-200.
• [25]Zlowodzki M, Williamson S, Cole PA, Zardiackas LD, Kregor PJ: Biomechanical evaluation of the less invasive stabilization system, angled blade plate, and retrograde intramedullary nail for the internal fixation of distal femur fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2004, 18:494-502.
• [26]Weight M, Collinge C: Early results of the less invasive stabilization system for mechanically unstable fractures of the distal femur (AO/OTA types A2, A3, C2, and C3). J Orthop Trauma 2004, 18:503-508.
• [27]Lujan TJ, Henderson CE, Madey SM, Fitzpatrick DC, Marsh JL, Bottlang M: Locked plating of distal femur fractures leads to inconsistent and asymmetric callus formation. J Orthop Trauma 2010, 24:156-162.
• [28]Zlowodzki M, Bhandari M, Marek DJ, Cole PA, Kregor PJ: Operative treatment of acute distal femur fractures: systematic review of 2 comparative studies and 45 case series (1989 to 2005). J Orthop Trauma 2006, 20:366-371.
• [29]Beingessner D, Moon E, Barei D, Morshed S: Biomechanical analysis of the less invasive stabilization system for mechanically unstable fractures of the distal femur: comparison of titanium versus stainless steel and bicortical versus unicortical fixation. J Trauma 2011, 71(3):620-4.
• [30]Stoffel K, Dieter U, Stachowiak G, Gachter A, Kuster MS: Biomechanical testing of the LCP–how can stability in locked internal fixators be controlled? Injury 2003, 34(Suppl 2):B11-B19.
• [31]Strauss EJ, Schwarzkopf R, Kummer F, Egol KA: The current status of locked plating: the good, the bad, and the ugly. J Orthop Trauma 2008, 22:479-486.
• [32]Bottlang M, Doornink J, Lujan TJ, Fitzpatrick DC, Marsh JL, Augat P, von Rechenberg B, Lesser M, Madey SM: Effects of construct stiffness on healing of fractures stabilized with locking plates. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010, 92:12-22.
• [33]Smith WR, Ziran BH, Anglen JO, Stahel PF: Locking plates: tips and tricks. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007, 89:2298-2307.
• [34]Hertel R, Eijer H, Meisser A, Hauke C, Perren SM: Biomechanical and biological considerations relating to the clinical use of the Point Contact-Fixator—evaluation of the device handling test in the treatment of diaphyseal fractures of the radius and/or ulna. Injury 2001, 32(Suppl 2):B10-B14.
• [35]Ricci WM, Streubel PN, Morshed S, Collinge C, Nork SE, Gardner MJ: Risk factor for failure of locked plate fixation of distal femur fractures: an analysis of 305 cases. In In OTA Annual Meeting. San Diego, CA; 2009. Paper no. 79
• [36]Pandy MG, Sasaki K, Kim S: A three-dimensional musculoskeletal model of the human knee joint. Part 1: theoretical construct. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 1998, 1:87-108.
• [37]Zehntner MK, Marchesi DG, Burch H, Ganz R: Alignment of supracondylar/intercondylar fractures of the femur after internal fixation by AO/ASIF technique. J Orthop Trauma 1992, 6:318-326.
• [38]Davison BL: Varus collapse of comminuted distal femur fractures after open reduction and internal fixation with a lateral condylar buttress plate. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 2003, 32:27-30.