Reliability of current classification systems for periprosthetic distal femur fractures

被引:3
|
作者
Makaram, Navnit S. [1 ,2 ]
Ross, Lauren A. [1 ]
Keenan, Oisin J. F. [1 ]
Magill, Matthew [2 ]
Moran, Matt
Scott, Chloe E. H. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Royal Infirm Edinburgh NHS Trust, Dept Orthopaed & Trauma, Edinburgh EH16 4SA, Scotland
[2] Univ Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland
来源
INJURY-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE CARE OF THE INJURED | 2022年 / 53卷 / 10期
关键词
Periprosthetic; Total Knee arthroplasty; Prognosis; Predictors; Knee Replacement; TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY; FEMORAL FRACTURES; OPEN REDUCTION; MORTALITY; REPLACEMENT; MANAGEMENT; FIXATION; FAILURE;
D O I
10.1016/j.injury.2022.08.002
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Introduction: This study aims to determine which Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fracture (PDFF) classifica-tion system is the most reliable. The secondary aim was to determine which classification system corre-lated most accurately with the surgical management recommended and delivered. Methods: Between 2011 and 2019, 83 patients with 83 PDFFs that extended to the femoral component of a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) were retrospectively identified from a trauma database. Minimum follow-up was 1 year. Age, BMI, time from TKA, operative management, and Nottingham Hip Fracture Scores were collected, and AP and lateral radiographs used to classify all fractures using seven established clas-sification systems by two observers blinded to management. In patients treated operatively ( n = 69), preoperative radiographs were reviewed by two surgeons with expertise in trauma and knee revision who recommended fixation or distal femoral replacement (DFR) requirement. Results: Mean age was 80.7 years (SD9.4) and 50 (84.7%) were female. PDFFs occurred at a mean 9.5 years (SD5.2) after primary TKA. Mean follow-up was 3.8 years (SD2.9). Management was fixation in 47, DFR in 22 and non-operative for 14. The Fakler classification demonstrated highest interobserver reliabil-ity (ICC = 0.948), followed by the Rorabeck (ICC = 0.903), UCS (ICC = 0.850) and Chen (ICC = 0.906). The Neer classification demonstrated weakest agreement (ICC = 0.633). Overall accuracy of predicting DFR require-ment (as determined by two experts) was highest for the Fakler system (83.9%). Compared with actual management delivered the Rorabeck system was most accurate (94.1%). Multivariate regression demon-strated that the ultimate need for DFR ( n = 22) was independently associated with medial comminution (HR 2.66 (1.12-6.35 95%CI), p = 0.027) and fractures distal to the anterior flange and posterior condyle of the femoral component (HR 2.45 (1.13-5.31), p = 0.024). Conclusion: The Fakler classification showed highest interobserver agreement and was most accurately predictive of the management recommended by two experts. No classification system accurately pre-dicted the fractures that required DFR, and none included medial comminution which was independently associated with DFR requirement. There remains a need for a PDFF classification system that reliably guides operative management of PDFFs. (c) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:3430 / 3437
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Primary Versus Secondary Distal Femoral Arthroplasty for Treatment of Total Knee Arthroplasty Periprosthetic Femur Fractures
    Chen, Antonia F.
    Choi, Lisa E.
    Colman, Matthew W.
    Goodman, Mark A.
    Crossett, Lawrence S.
    Tarkin, Ivan S.
    McGough, Richard L.
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2013, 28 (09) : 1580 - 1584
  • [22] What is new in distal femur periprosthetic fracture fixation?
    Tosounidis, Theodoros H.
    Giannoudis, Peter V.
    INJURY-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE CARE OF THE INJURED, 2015, 46 (12): : 2293 - 2296
  • [23] Retrograde intramedullary nailing for periprosthetic fractures of the distal femur
    Biber, R.
    Bail, H. J.
    OPERATIVE ORTHOPADIE UND TRAUMATOLOGIE, 2014, 26 (05): : 438 - +
  • [24] Operative Results of Periprosthetic Fractures of The Distal Femur In A Single Academic Unit
    Leino, O. K.
    Lempainen, L.
    Virolainen, P.
    Sarimo, J.
    Poeloenen, T.
    Maekelae, K. T.
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2015, 104 (03) : 200 - 207
  • [25] Nail Plate Combination Technique for Native and Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures
    Liporace, Frank A.
    Yoon, Richard S.
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC TRAUMA, 2019, 33 (02) : E64 - E68
  • [26] Distal Femur Replacement Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Treatment of Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Wadhwa, Harsh
    Salazar, Brett P.
    Goodnough, L. Henry
    Van Rysselberghe, Noelle L.
    DeBaun, Malcolm R.
    Wong, Hong-Nei
    Gardner, Michael J.
    Bishop, Julius A.
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC TRAUMA, 2022, 36 (01) : 1 - 6
  • [27] Clinical Outcomes Following Distal Femur Replacement for Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Mechas, Charles A.
    Isla, Alexander E.
    Abbenhaus, Eric J.
    Landy, David C.
    Duncan, Stephen T.
    Selby, Jeffrey B.
    Aneja, Arun
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2022, 37 (05) : 1002 - 1008
  • [28] Treatment of distal femur fractures with locking plates : Comparison of periprosthetic fractures above total knee arthroplasty and non-periprosthetic fractures
    Song, Sang Jun
    Kim, Kang Il
    Song, Wook Jae
    Kim, Dong Kyoon
    Bae, Dae Kyung
    ACTA ORTHOPAEDICA BELGICA, 2014, 80 (03): : 380 - 390
  • [29] Distal femoral replacement or internal fixation for management of periprosthetic distal femur fractures: A systematic review
    Lex, Johnathan R.
    Di Michele, Joseph
    Sepehri, Aresh
    Chuang, Tim C.
    Backstein, David J.
    Kreder, Hans J.
    KNEE, 2022, 37 : 121 - 131
  • [30] Does Time to Surgery Affect Outcomes for Periprosthetic Femur Fractures?
    Sellan, Michael E.
    Lanting, Brent A.
    Schemitsch, Emil H.
    MacDonald, Steven J.
    Vasarhelyi, Edward M.
    Howard, James L.
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2018, 33 (03) : 878 - 881