Henry A Claireaux1, Henry Kc Searle2, Nick R Parsons3, Xavier L Griffin4,5. 1. Oxford Trauma and Emergency Care, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedic Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 2. Oxford University Clinical Academic Graduate School, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK. 3. Statistics & Epidemiology Unit, Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK. 4. Bone and Joint Health, Blizard Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. 5. Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fractures of the distal femur (the far end of the thigh bone just above the knee) are a considerable cause of morbidity. Various different surgical and non-surgical treatments have been used in the management of these injuries but the best treatment remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of interventions for treating fractures of the distal femur in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in adults comparing interventions for treating fractures of the distal femur. Interventions included surgical implants (retrograde intramedullary nail (RIMN), fixed-angle devices, non-locking plate fixation, locking plate, internal fixation, distal femoral replacement, mono-axial plates, poly-axial plates and condylar buttress plates) and non-surgical management. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our critical outcomes were validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), direct adverse events, participant-reported quality of life (QoL) and pain scores. Our other important outcomes were adverse events indirectly related to intervention, symptomatic non-union, malunion and resource use. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies with 753 participants: 13 studies compared different surgical interventions, and one study compared surgical with non-surgical management. Here, we report the effects for RIMN compared with locking plates. Three studies (221 participants) reported this comparison; it included the largest study population and these are the two most commonly used devices in contemporary orthopaedic trauma practice. Studies used three different tools to assess PROMs. We found very-low certainty evidence for lower Disability Rating Index scores after RIMN at short-term follow-up favouring RIMN (mean difference (MD) -21.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -38.16 to -5.64; 1 study, 12 participants) and low-certainty evidence of little or no difference at long-term follow-up (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.06; 2 studies, 198 participants). Re-expressing the SMD of the long-term follow-up data to Knee Society Score (KSS) used by one study found no clinical benefit of RIMN, based on a minimal clinically important difference of 9 points (MD 2.47, 95% CI -6.18 to 0.74). The effect on QoL was very uncertain at four months (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.44; 1 study, 14 participants) and one year (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.21; 1 study, 156 participants); this evidence was very low certainty. For direct adverse events, studies reported reoperation, loss of fixation, superficial and deep infection, haematoma formation and implant loosening. Effects for all events were imprecise with the possibility of benefit or harm for both treatments. We considered reoperation the most clinically relevant. There was very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in reoperation between the two implants (risk ratio (RR) 1.48, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.00; 1 study, 104 participants). No studies reported pain. For other important outcomes, we noted that people treated with RIMN may be more likely to have varus/valgus deformity (RR 2.18, 95% CI 1.09 to 4.37; 1 study, 33 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, we found no evidence of any important differences between treatments in terms of bony union, indirect adverse events, or resource use. Other comparisons of surgical interventions included in the review were: RIMN versus single fixed-angle device (3 studies, 175 participants); RIMN versus non-locking plate fixation (1 study, 18 participants); locking plate versus single fixed-angle device (2 studies, 130 participants); internal fixation versus distal femoral replacement (1 study, 23 participants); mono-axial plates versus poly-axial plates (2 studies, 67 participants); mono-axial plate versus condylar buttress plate (1 study, 78 participants). The certainty of the evidence for outcomes in these comparisons was low to very low, and most effect estimates were imprecise. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the major limitations of the available evidence concerning current treatment interventions for fractures of the distal femur. The currently available evidence is incomplete and insufficient to inform clinical practice. Priority should be given to randomised controlled trials comparing contemporary treatments for people with fractures of the distal femur. At a minimum, these should report validated patient-reported functional and quality-of-life outcomes at one and two years, with an agreed core outcome set. All trials should be reported in full using the CONSORT guidelines.
BACKGROUND: Fractures of the distal femur (the far end of the thigh bone just above the knee) are a considerable cause of morbidity. Various different surgical and non-surgical treatments have been used in the management of these injuries but the best treatment remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of interventions for treating fractures of the distal femur in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in adults comparing interventions for treating fractures of the distal femur. Interventions included surgical implants (retrograde intramedullary nail (RIMN), fixed-angle devices, non-locking plate fixation, locking plate, internal fixation, distal femoral replacement, mono-axial plates, poly-axial plates and condylar buttress plates) and non-surgical management. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our critical outcomes were validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), direct adverse events, participant-reported quality of life (QoL) and pain scores. Our other important outcomes were adverse events indirectly related to intervention, symptomatic non-union, malunion and resource use. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies with 753 participants: 13 studies compared different surgical interventions, and one study compared surgical with non-surgical management. Here, we report the effects for RIMN compared with locking plates. Three studies (221 participants) reported this comparison; it included the largest study population and these are the two most commonly used devices in contemporary orthopaedic trauma practice. Studies used three different tools to assess PROMs. We found very-low certainty evidence for lower Disability Rating Index scores after RIMN at short-term follow-up favouring RIMN (mean difference (MD) -21.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -38.16 to -5.64; 1 study, 12 participants) and low-certainty evidence of little or no difference at long-term follow-up (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.06; 2 studies, 198 participants). Re-expressing the SMD of the long-term follow-up data to Knee Society Score (KSS) used by one study found no clinical benefit of RIMN, based on a minimal clinically important difference of 9 points (MD 2.47, 95% CI -6.18 to 0.74). The effect on QoL was very uncertain at four months (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.44; 1 study, 14 participants) and one year (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.21; 1 study, 156 participants); this evidence was very low certainty. For direct adverse events, studies reported reoperation, loss of fixation, superficial and deep infection, haematoma formation and implant loosening. Effects for all events were imprecise with the possibility of benefit or harm for both treatments. We considered reoperation the most clinically relevant. There was very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in reoperation between the two implants (risk ratio (RR) 1.48, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.00; 1 study, 104 participants). No studies reported pain. For other important outcomes, we noted that people treated with RIMN may be more likely to have varus/valgus deformity (RR 2.18, 95% CI 1.09 to 4.37; 1 study, 33 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, we found no evidence of any important differences between treatments in terms of bony union, indirect adverse events, or resource use. Other comparisons of surgical interventions included in the review were: RIMN versus single fixed-angle device (3 studies, 175 participants); RIMN versus non-locking plate fixation (1 study, 18 participants); locking plate versus single fixed-angle device (2 studies, 130 participants); internal fixation versus distal femoral replacement (1 study, 23 participants); mono-axial plates versus poly-axial plates (2 studies, 67 participants); mono-axial plate versus condylar buttress plate (1 study, 78 participants). The certainty of the evidence for outcomes in these comparisons was low to very low, and most effect estimates were imprecise. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the major limitations of the available evidence concerning current treatment interventions for fractures of the distal femur. The currently available evidence is incomplete and insufficient to inform clinical practice. Priority should be given to randomised controlled trials comparing contemporary treatments for people with fractures of the distal femur. At a minimum, these should report validated patient-reported functional and quality-of-life outcomes at one and two years, with an agreed core outcome set. All trials should be reported in full using the CONSORT guidelines.
Authors: Alejandro Lizaur-Utrilla; Santiago Gonzalez-Parreño; Daniel Martinez-Mendez; Francisco A Miralles-Muñoz; Fernando A Lopez-Prats Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2019-05-20 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Robert P Dunbar; Kenneth A Egol; Clifford B Jones; Jan P Ertl; Brian Mullis; Edward Perez; Cory A Collinge; Robert Ostrum; Catherine Humphrey; Michael J Gardner; William M Ricci; Laura S Phieffer; David Teague; William Ertl; Christopher T Born; Alan Zonno; Jodi Siegel; H Claude Sagi; Andrew Pollak; Andrew H Schmidt; David Templeman; Andrew Sems; Darin M Friess; Hans-Christoph Pape; James C Krieg; Paul Tornetta Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2022-08-26 Impact factor: 2.884