Distal Femoral Replacement versus Operative Fixation for Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and distal femoral replacement (DFR) have been utilized in the management of periprosthetic distal femur fractures. At present, much of the literature has been limited to small retrospective series. The purpose of the current investigation was to present the results of pooled data to determine the complication rates associated with ORIF and DFR. Methods: Publications from 2010 to 2020 describing 10 or more periprosthetic distal femur fractures treated with ORIF (ie, single plate, intramedullary nail, and dual fixation) or DFR were included, resulting in 32 publications and 1,258 fractures (977 ORIF and 281 DFR). Occurrence of surgical complications, reoperations, and medical complications were evaluated and compared. Results: The rate of surgical complications (ORIF versus DFR, 20.5 versus 14.9%, P = 1.0) and reoperations (12.9 versus 12.5%, P = 1.0) following DFR were similar. However, pooled analyses demonstrated that patients treated with DFR had a higher medical complication rate (ORIF versus DFR, 8.5 versus 23.1%, P =.0006). Conclusion: ORIF and DFR for the treatment of periprosthetic distal femur fractures have similar surgical complication and reoperation profiles. While this review found an increased rate of medical complication following DFR, there are limitations in quality reporting in the literature, which should be considered when interpreting the study's findings. Failed ORIF can be salvaged with DFR, but the difficulty of this reoperation is dependent on the ORIF technique that was used. With future prospective studies, this review can help guide management of these fractures. (c) 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Automated summary

This study showed that ORIF and DFR have similar rates of surgical complications and reoperations, but DFR had a higher rate of medical complications.