| Literature DB >> 24279475 |
Martin F Hoffmann1, Clifford B Jones, Debra L Sietsema, Paul Tornetta, Scott J Koenig.
Abstract
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.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24279475 PMCID: PMC4222045 DOI: 10.1186/1749-799X-8-43
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Mechanism of injury
| Low energy fall | 41 | 36.9 |
| High energy fall | 9 | 8.1 |
| Motor vehicle accident | 44 | 39.6 |
| Motor cycle accident | 7 | 6.3 |
| Sport | 4 | 3.6 |
| Unknown | 6 | 5.4 |
Comorbidities and contributing factors
| Diabetes | 21 | 18.9 |
| Current smoker | 21 | 18.9 |
| Past smoker | 20 | 18.0 |
| Previous total knee replacement | 22 | 19.8 |
| Obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) | 38 | 34.2 |
Figure 1Treatment and follow-up of a distal femoral fracture. (A) Preoperative radiographic AP view of a distal femur fracture with external fixation. (B) The lateral view shows the sagittal alignment of the fragments. (C,D) Postoperative radiographs confirm reduction quality and implant position. (E,F) Callus formation and cortical continuity demonstrate ongoing fracture healing.
Figure 2CT-scans provide additional information concerning articular involvement. (A) Coronal image of a Hoffa's fracture. (B) CT reconstruction of a Hoffa's fracture.
AO/OTA classification
| 33 A1 | 17 | 15.3 |
| 33 A2 | 5 | 4.5 |
| 33 A3 | 22 | 19.8 |
| 33 B1 | 3 | 2.7 |
| 33 B2 | 1 | 0.9 |
| 33 B3 | 0 | 0.0 |
| 33 C1 | 6 | 5.4 |
| 33 C2 | 38 | 34.2 |
| 33 C3 | 19 | 17.1 |
Implant types and manufacturer
| Periarticular distal lateral femoral locking plate (Zimmer) | 57 | Stainless steel | 51.4 |
| Periloc (Smith and Nephew) | 25 | Stainless steel | 22.5 |
| Locked compression plate (Synthes) | 21 | Stainless steel | 18.9 |
| LISS (Synthes) | 8 | Titanium | 7.2 |
Healing status after distal femur fracture
| Healed | 101 | 91.0 |
| Nonunion | 4 | 3.6 |
| Total knee replacement | 4 | 3.6 |
| Antibiotic spacer after infected total knee replacement | 1 | 0.9 |
| Below knee amputation | 1 | 0.9 |
Clinical outcome (range of motion) according to Kristensen[11]
| | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 3 | 19 | 11 | 73 | 5 |
| Percentage (%) | 2.7 | 17.1 | 9.9 | 65.8 | 4.5 |
The Pritchett rating system for supracondylar femoral fractures
| Excellent | Full extension; flexion >110°; no deformity or joint incongruity |
| Good | Full extension; flexion >90°; <5° of varus or valgus; loss of length <1.5 cm, minimal pain |
| Fair | Flexion of 75°–90°; varus, valgus, or angular deformity of 5°–10°; mild or moderate pain |
| Poor | Flexion <75°; valgus, varus, or angular deformity >10°; articulate incongruity; frequent pain requiring analgesics |