Cargando…

Management of distal femoral periprosthetic fractures by distal femoral locking plate: A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Management of periprosthetic supracondylar femoral fractures is difficult. Osteoporosis, comminution and bone loss, compromise stability with delayed mobility and poor functional outcomes. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with anatomic distal femoral (DF) locking plate permits...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thukral, Rajiv, Marya, SKS, Singh, Chandeep
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4436487/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26015610
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.152480
_version_ 1782372089969246208
author Thukral, Rajiv
Marya, SKS
Singh, Chandeep
author_facet Thukral, Rajiv
Marya, SKS
Singh, Chandeep
author_sort Thukral, Rajiv
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Management of periprosthetic supracondylar femoral fractures is difficult. Osteoporosis, comminution and bone loss, compromise stability with delayed mobility and poor functional outcomes. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with anatomic distal femoral (DF) locking plate permits early mobilization. However, this usually necessitates bone grafting (BG). Biological fixation using minimally invasive techniques minimizes periosteal stripping and morbidity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 31 patients with comminuted periprosthetic DF fractures were reviewed retrospectively from October 2006 to September 2012. All patients underwent fixation using a DF locking compression plate (Synthes). 17 patients underwent ORIF with primary BG, whereas 14 were treated by closed reduction (CR) and internal fixation using biological minimally invasive techniques. Clinical and radiological followup were recorded for an average 36 months. RESULTS: Mean time to union for the entire group was 5.6 months (range 3-9 months). Patients of ORIF group took longer (Mean 6.4 months, range 4.5-9 months) than the CR group (mean 4.6 months, range 3-7 months). Three patients of ORIF and one in CR group had poor results. Mean knee society scores were higher for CR group at 6 months, but nearly identical at 12 months, with similar eventual range of motion. DISCUSSION: Locked plating of comminuted periprosthetic DF fractures permits stable rigid fixation and early mobilization. Fixation using minimally invasive biological techniques minimizes morbidity and may obviate the need for primary BG.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4436487
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44364872015-05-26 Management of distal femoral periprosthetic fractures by distal femoral locking plate: A retrospective study. Thukral, Rajiv Marya, SKS Singh, Chandeep Indian J Orthop Original Article BACKGROUND: Management of periprosthetic supracondylar femoral fractures is difficult. Osteoporosis, comminution and bone loss, compromise stability with delayed mobility and poor functional outcomes. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with anatomic distal femoral (DF) locking plate permits early mobilization. However, this usually necessitates bone grafting (BG). Biological fixation using minimally invasive techniques minimizes periosteal stripping and morbidity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 31 patients with comminuted periprosthetic DF fractures were reviewed retrospectively from October 2006 to September 2012. All patients underwent fixation using a DF locking compression plate (Synthes). 17 patients underwent ORIF with primary BG, whereas 14 were treated by closed reduction (CR) and internal fixation using biological minimally invasive techniques. Clinical and radiological followup were recorded for an average 36 months. RESULTS: Mean time to union for the entire group was 5.6 months (range 3-9 months). Patients of ORIF group took longer (Mean 6.4 months, range 4.5-9 months) than the CR group (mean 4.6 months, range 3-7 months). Three patients of ORIF and one in CR group had poor results. Mean knee society scores were higher for CR group at 6 months, but nearly identical at 12 months, with similar eventual range of motion. DISCUSSION: Locked plating of comminuted periprosthetic DF fractures permits stable rigid fixation and early mobilization. Fixation using minimally invasive biological techniques minimizes morbidity and may obviate the need for primary BG. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4436487/ /pubmed/26015610 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.152480 Text en Copyright: © Indian Journal of Orthopaedics http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Thukral, Rajiv
Marya, SKS
Singh, Chandeep
Management of distal femoral periprosthetic fractures by distal femoral locking plate: A retrospective study.
title Management of distal femoral periprosthetic fractures by distal femoral locking plate: A retrospective study.
title_full Management of distal femoral periprosthetic fractures by distal femoral locking plate: A retrospective study.
title_fullStr Management of distal femoral periprosthetic fractures by distal femoral locking plate: A retrospective study.
title_full_unstemmed Management of distal femoral periprosthetic fractures by distal femoral locking plate: A retrospective study.
title_short Management of distal femoral periprosthetic fractures by distal femoral locking plate: A retrospective study.
title_sort management of distal femoral periprosthetic fractures by distal femoral locking plate: a retrospective study.
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4436487/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26015610
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.152480
work_keys_str_mv AT thukralrajiv managementofdistalfemoralperiprostheticfracturesbydistalfemorallockingplatearetrospectivestudy
AT maryasks managementofdistalfemoralperiprostheticfracturesbydistalfemorallockingplatearetrospectivestudy
AT singhchandeep managementofdistalfemoralperiprostheticfracturesbydistalfemorallockingplatearetrospectivestudy