David A Quinzi1, Gabriel Ramirez1, Nathan B Kaplan1, Thomas G Myers1, Caroline P Thirukumaran1,2,3, Benjamin F Ricciardi4,5,6. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Rochester, NY, 14620, USA. 2. Division of Health Policy and Outcomes Research, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Rochester, NY, 14620, USA. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Center for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Rochester School of Medicine, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Rochester, NY, 14620, USA. 4. Department of Orthopaedics, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Rochester, NY, 14620, USA. benjamin_ricciardi@urmc.rochester.edu. 5. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Center for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Rochester School of Medicine, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Rochester, NY, 14620, USA. benjamin_ricciardi@urmc.rochester.edu. 6. Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Rochester School of Medicine, 1000 South Avenue, Suite 050, Rochester, NY, 14607, USA. benjamin_ricciardi@urmc.rochester.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our purpose was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate complication and revision rates for periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PPDFF) treated with: (1) ORIF using periarticular locking plates (ORIF), (2) retrograde intramedullary nail (IMN), and (3) distal femoral replacement (DFR). METHODS: Systematic review of the literature was performed to identify eligible studies (N = 52). Identified treatment groups were: ORIF (N = 1205 cases), IMN (N = 272 cases), and DFR (N = 353 cases). Median follow-up was 30 months (range 6-96 months). Primary outcomes were: (1) major complication rates and (2) reoperation rates over the follow-up period. Secondary outcomes were incidence of deep infection, periprosthetic fracture, mortality over the follow-up period, 1-year mortality, non-union, malunion, delayed union, and hardware failure. Data for primary and secondary outcomes were pooled and unadjusted analysis was performed. Meta-analysis was performed on subset of individual studies comparing at least two of three treatment groups (N = 14 studies). Odds-ratios and their respective standard errors were determined for each treatment group combination. Maximum likelihood random effects meta-analysis was conducted for primary outcomes. RESULTS: From the systematic review, major complication rates (p = 0.55) and reoperation rates (p = 0.20) were not significantly different between the three treatment groups. DFR group had a higher incidence of deep infection relative to IMN and ORIF groups (p = 0.03). Malunion rates were higher in IMN versus ORIF (p = 0.02). For the meta-analysis, odds of major complications were not significantly different between IMN versus DFR (OR 1.39 [0.23-8.52]), IMN versus ORIF (OR 0.86 [0.48-1.53]), or the ORIF versus DFR (OR 0.91 [0.52-1.59]). Additionally, odds of a reoperation were not significantly different between IMN versus DFR (OR 0.59 [0.08-4.11]), IMN versus ORIF (OR 1.26 [0.66-2.40]), or ORIF versus DFR (OR 0.91 [0.51-1.55]). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in major complications or reoperations between the three treatment groups. Deep infection rates were higher in DFR relative to internal fixation, malunion rates were higher in IMN versus ORIF, and periprosthetic fracture rates were higher in DFR and IMN versus ORIF.
BACKGROUND: Our purpose was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate complication and revision rates for periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PPDFF) treated with: (1) ORIF using periarticular locking plates (ORIF), (2) retrograde intramedullary nail (IMN), and (3) distal femoral replacement (DFR). METHODS: Systematic review of the literature was performed to identify eligible studies (N = 52). Identified treatment groups were: ORIF (N = 1205 cases), IMN (N = 272 cases), and DFR (N = 353 cases). Median follow-up was 30 months (range 6-96 months). Primary outcomes were: (1) major complication rates and (2) reoperation rates over the follow-up period. Secondary outcomes were incidence of deep infection, periprosthetic fracture, mortality over the follow-up period, 1-year mortality, non-union, malunion, delayed union, and hardware failure. Data for primary and secondary outcomes were pooled and unadjusted analysis was performed. Meta-analysis was performed on subset of individual studies comparing at least two of three treatment groups (N = 14 studies). Odds-ratios and their respective standard errors were determined for each treatment group combination. Maximum likelihood random effects meta-analysis was conducted for primary outcomes. RESULTS: From the systematic review, major complication rates (p = 0.55) and reoperation rates (p = 0.20) were not significantly different between the three treatment groups. DFR group had a higher incidence of deep infection relative to IMN and ORIF groups (p = 0.03). Malunion rates were higher in IMN versus ORIF (p = 0.02). For the meta-analysis, odds of major complications were not significantly different between IMN versus DFR (OR 1.39 [0.23-8.52]), IMN versus ORIF (OR 0.86 [0.48-1.53]), or the ORIF versus DFR (OR 0.91 [0.52-1.59]). Additionally, odds of a reoperation were not significantly different between IMN versus DFR (OR 0.59 [0.08-4.11]), IMN versus ORIF (OR 1.26 [0.66-2.40]), or ORIF versus DFR (OR 0.91 [0.51-1.55]). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in major complications or reoperations between the three treatment groups. Deep infection rates were higher in DFR relative to internal fixation, malunion rates were higher in IMN versus ORIF, and periprosthetic fracture rates were higher in DFR and IMN versus ORIF.
Authors: Peter L Althausen; Mark A Lee; Christopher G Finkemeier; John P Meehan; Juan J Rodrigo Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Jason S Hoellwarth; Mitchell S Fourman; Lawrence Crossett; Mark Goodman; Peter Siska; Gele B Moloney; Ivan S Tarkin Journal: Injury Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: Diego A Herrera; Philip J Kregor; Peter A Cole; Bruce A Levy; Anders Jönsson; Michael Zlowodzki Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.717
Authors: Michael Pitta; Christina I Esposito; Zhichang Li; Yuo-Yu Lee; Timothy M Wright; Douglas E Padgett Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2017-09-25 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Davide De Marco; Federica Messina; Cesare Meschini; Maria Serena Oliva; Giuseppe Rovere; Giuseppe Maccagnano; Giovanni Noia; Giulio Maccauro; Antonio Ziranu Journal: Orthop Rev (Pavia) Date: 2022-04-25