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
  • [31] Treatment of B1 Distal Periprosthetic Femur Fractures
    Sheridan, Gerard A.
    Sepehri, Aresh
    Stoffel, Karl
    Masri, Bassam A.
    ORTHOPEDIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2021, 52 (04) : 335 - 346
  • [32] Biomechanics of periprosthetic femur fractures and early weightbearing
    Khwaja, Ansab
    Mahoney, William
    Johnson, Jay
    Trompeter, Alex
    Lowe, Jason
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND TRAUMATOLOGY, 2021, 31 (05) : 861 - 869
  • [33] Treatment of Periprosthetic Distal Femoral Fractures
    Malotin, T.
    Jansova, M.
    Matejka, T.
    Matejka, J.
    ACTA CHIRURGIAE ORTHOPAEDICAE ET TRAUMATOLOGIAE CECHOSLOVACA, 2019, 86 (03) : 205 - 211
  • [34] Distal femoral replacement for the treatment of periprosthetic distal femoral fractures around a total knee arthroplasty: a metaanalysis
    Wood, Matthew J.
    Al-Jabri, Talal
    Stelzhammer, Thomas
    Brivio, Angela
    Donaldson, James
    Skinner, John A.
    Barrett, David
    ORTHOPEDIC REVIEWS, 2024, 16
  • [35] Validity and reliability of the Unified Classification System applied to periprosthetic femur fractures: a comparison with the Vancouver system
    De Meo, Daniele
    Zucchi, Benedetta
    Castagna, Valerio
    Pieracci, Edoardo M.
    Mangone, Massimiliano
    Calistri, Alessandro
    Persiani, Pietro
    Villani, Ciro
    CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION, 2020, 36 (08) : 1375 - 1381
  • [36] Periprosthetic Femur Fractures
    Ricci, William M.
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC TRAUMA, 2015, 29 (03) : 130 - 137
  • [37] Results and complications in the treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures with a locked plate system
    Pressmar, J.
    Macholz, F.
    Merkert, W.
    Gebhard, F.
    Liener, U. C.
    UNFALLCHIRURG, 2010, 113 (03): : 195 - +
  • [38] Dual Plate Fixation of Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures
    Andring, Nicholas A.
    Kaupp, Shannon M.
    Henry, Kaitlin A.
    Helmig, Kathryn C.
    Babcock, Sharon
    Halvorson, Jason J.
    Pilson, Holly T.
    Carroll, Eben A.
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC TRAUMA, 2024, 38 (01) : 36 - 41
  • [39] Clinical differences between periprosthetic and native distal femur fractures: a comparative observational study
    Kong, Shana
    Tse, Shannon
    Saade, Aziz
    Bautista, Barry
    Haffner, Max
    Saiz Jr, Augustine M.
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND RESEARCH, 2024, 19 (01):
  • [40] Mortality after Periprosthetic Femur Fractures
    Streubel, Philipp Nicolas
    JOURNAL OF KNEE SURGERY, 2013, 26 (01) : 27 - 30