BACKGROUND: Treatment of distal femoral fractures by percutaneous plating without direct manipulation of the fracture fragments leads to good clinical outcome. Percutaneous plating has traditionally involved using a dynamic condylar screw (DCS) and the less invasive stabilization system (LISS) was reported. The biomechanical study showed that the LISS had the enhanced ability to withstand higher loads. However, there were no clinical comparison study of distal femoral fractures treated with DCS and LISS. The aim of this study was to outline any differences in clinical and radiological results between the DCS and the LISS for treating distal femoral fractures. METHODS: Forty-five supracondylar or intercondylar femoral fractures were treated by minimally invasive percutaneous plating with the DCS or the LISS without bone graft. There were 26 patients with 26 fractures in the DCS group and 19 patients with 19 fractures in the LISS group. The data of the clinical and radiographic outcomes were compared between the two different fixation devices. RESULTS: Complete union was achieved in 41 of the 45 patients (91.1%). The success rate was 96.2% in the DCS group and 94.7% in the LISS group (p = 0.672). The mean fusion time was 19.18 weeks in the DCS group and 19.38 weeks in the LISS group (p = 0.835). The average range of motion of the knee joint was 111.65 degrees in the DCS group and 116.26 degrees in the LISS group (p = 0.334). Early implant failure only occurred in the DCS group (11.5%, p = 0.252, odds ratio = 1.826 [95% CI: 1.387-2.404]). The total complication rate was 15.4% in the DCS group and 15.8% in the LISS group (p = 0.641). The mean loss of coronal fracture fragment angle was -0.77 degrees in the DCS group and -0.19 degrees in the LISS group (p = 0.125). CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive percutaneous plating with the DCS or the LISS provides good outcome with few complications in the treatment of distal femoral fractures. Both systems minimize soft tissue trauma. LISS seems to have lower risk of early implant loosening than the DCS.
BACKGROUND: Treatment of distal femoral fractures by percutaneous plating without direct manipulation of the fracture fragments leads to good clinical outcome. Percutaneous plating has traditionally involved using a dynamic condylar screw (DCS) and the less invasive stabilization system (LISS) was reported. The biomechanical study showed that the LISS had the enhanced ability to withstand higher loads. However, there were no clinical comparison study of distal femoral fractures treated with DCS and LISS. The aim of this study was to outline any differences in clinical and radiological results between the DCS and the LISS for treating distal femoral fractures. METHODS: Forty-five supracondylar or intercondylar femoral fractures were treated by minimally invasive percutaneous plating with the DCS or the LISS without bone graft. There were 26 patients with 26 fractures in the DCS group and 19 patients with 19 fractures in the LISS group. The data of the clinical and radiographic outcomes were compared between the two different fixation devices. RESULTS: Complete union was achieved in 41 of the 45 patients (91.1%). The success rate was 96.2% in the DCS group and 94.7% in the LISS group (p = 0.672). The mean fusion time was 19.18 weeks in the DCS group and 19.38 weeks in the LISS group (p = 0.835). The average range of motion of the knee joint was 111.65 degrees in the DCS group and 116.26 degrees in the LISS group (p = 0.334). Early implant failure only occurred in the DCS group (11.5%, p = 0.252, odds ratio = 1.826 [95% CI: 1.387-2.404]). The total complication rate was 15.4% in the DCS group and 15.8% in the LISS group (p = 0.641). The mean loss of coronal fracture fragment angle was -0.77 degrees in the DCS group and -0.19 degrees in the LISS group (p = 0.125). CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive percutaneous plating with the DCS or the LISS provides good outcome with few complications in the treatment of distal femoral fractures. Both systems minimize soft tissue trauma. LISS seems to have lower risk of early implant loosening than the DCS.
Authors: J Visser; J-M Brinkman; R L A W Bleys; R M Castelein; R J van Heerwaarden Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2012-07-20 Impact factor: 4.342