Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2022 Jan 1;36(1):1-6.
doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000002141.

Distal Femur Replacement Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Treatment of Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Harsh Wadhwa  1 , Brett P Salazar  1 , L Henry Goodnough  1 , Noelle L Van Rysselberghe  1 , Malcolm R DeBaun  1 , Hong-Nei Wong  2 , Michael J Gardner  1 , Julius A Bishop  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Distal Femur Replacement Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Treatment of Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Harsh Wadhwa et al. J Orthop Trauma. .

Abstract

Objective: To compare complications and functional outcomes of treatment with primary distal femoral replacement (DFR) versus open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF).

Data sources: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for English language studies up to May 19, 2020, identifying 913 studies.

Study selection: Studies that assessed complications of periprosthetic distal femur fractures with primary DFR or ORIF were included. Studies with sample size ≤5, mean age <55, nontraumatic indications for DFR, ORIF with nonlocking plates, native distal femoral fractures, or revision surgeries were excluded. Selection adhered to the PRISMA criteria.

Data extraction: Study quality was assessed using previously reported criteria. There were 40 Level IV studies, 17 Level III studies, and 1 Level II study.

Data synthesis: Fifty-eight studies with 1484 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Complications assessed {incidence rate ratio [IRR] [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.78 [0.59-1.03]} and reoperation or revision [IRR (95% CI): 0.71 (0.49-1.04)] were similar between the DFR and ORIF cohorts. The mean knee range of motion was greater in the ORIF cohort (DFR: 90.47 vs. ORIF: 100.36, P < 0.05). The mean Knee Society Score (KSS) (DFR: 79.41 vs. ORIF: 82.07, P = 0.35) and return to preoperative ambulatory status were similar [IRR (95% CI): 0.82 (0.48-1.41)].

Conclusions: In comparing complications among patients treated for periprosthetic distal femur fracture with DFR or ORIF, there was no difference between the groups. There were also no differences in functional outcomes, although knee range of motion was greater in the ORIF group. This systematic review and meta-analysis highlights the need for future prospective trials evaluating the outcomes of these divergent treatment strategies.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflict of interest.

References

    1. McGraw P, Kumar A. Periprosthetic fractures of the femur after total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Traumatol. 2010;11:135–141.
    1. Su ET, DeWal H, Di Cesare PE. Periprosthetic femoral fractures above total knee replacements. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2004;12:12–20.
    1. Aaron RK, Scott R. Supracondylar fracture of the femur after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987:136–139.
    1. Merkel KD, Johnson EW Jr. Supracondylar fracture of the femur after total knee arthroplasty. JBJS. 1986;68:29–43.
    1. Figgie MP, Goldberg VM, Figgie HE III, et al. The results of treatment of supracondylar fracture above total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1990;5:267–276.