Open reduction and internal fixation versus distal femoral replacement for periprosthetic distal femur fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Tyler Brady, Sam Shapiro, Kurt Barger, Niloofar Dehghan
{"title":"Open reduction and internal fixation versus distal femoral replacement for periprosthetic distal femur fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Tyler Brady, Sam Shapiro, Kurt Barger, Niloofar Dehghan","doi":"10.1097/OI9.0000000000000475","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis compares open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus distal femoral replacement (DFR) for periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PDFF), focusing on patient-reported outcomes, perioperative measures, functional results, and complications.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and ScienceDirect were searched from January 2010 through November 2024 using keywords and MeSH strategies.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Studies were eligible if they compared outcomes of ORIF and DFR for PDFFs and included ≥10 patients. Exclusion criteria included noncomparative studies, primary arthroplasty indications, and nonperiprosthetic fractures.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Two independent reviewers extracted data on demographics, interventions, patient-reported outcomes, functional outcomes, and complications. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Discrepancies were resolved by a third author.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate pooled incidence rates and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was assessed via I<sup>2</sup> and Cochran Q. Thirteen retrospective cohort studies (n = 881; ORIF: 554, DFR: 327) were included.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Knee Society Functional Scores were significantly better for ORIF vs DFR in the 2 studies reporting this metric (53 vs 39, <i>P</i> = 0.012; 52 vs 37, <i>P</i> = 0.027). There was no significant difference in Oxford Knee Scores (MD = -0.11, 95% confidence intervals: [-1.74, 1.52], <i>P</i> = 0.85). Mean time to weight bearing was shorter for DFR vs ORIF (2 vs 78 days, respectively; <i>P</i> = 0.04), although risk ratios for returning to preoperative mobility and achieving unassisted ambulation were statistically insignificant. The rate of reoperation was significantly higher for ORIF versus DFR (12% vs 7%, respectively; <i>P</i> = 0.048). ORIF may offer advantages in patient-reported functional outcomes compared with DFR. Although DFR allows for immediate weight bearing, this advantage may not imply superior long-term mobility.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III.</p>","PeriodicalId":74381,"journal":{"name":"OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma","volume":"9 2","pages":"e475"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12999137/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/OI9.0000000000000475","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis compares open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus distal femoral replacement (DFR) for periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PDFF), focusing on patient-reported outcomes, perioperative measures, functional results, and complications.
Data sources: Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and ScienceDirect were searched from January 2010 through November 2024 using keywords and MeSH strategies.
Study selection: Studies were eligible if they compared outcomes of ORIF and DFR for PDFFs and included ≥10 patients. Exclusion criteria included noncomparative studies, primary arthroplasty indications, and nonperiprosthetic fractures.
Data extraction: Two independent reviewers extracted data on demographics, interventions, patient-reported outcomes, functional outcomes, and complications. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Discrepancies were resolved by a third author.
Data synthesis: Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate pooled incidence rates and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was assessed via I2 and Cochran Q. Thirteen retrospective cohort studies (n = 881; ORIF: 554, DFR: 327) were included.
Conclusions: Knee Society Functional Scores were significantly better for ORIF vs DFR in the 2 studies reporting this metric (53 vs 39, P = 0.012; 52 vs 37, P = 0.027). There was no significant difference in Oxford Knee Scores (MD = -0.11, 95% confidence intervals: [-1.74, 1.52], P = 0.85). Mean time to weight bearing was shorter for DFR vs ORIF (2 vs 78 days, respectively; P = 0.04), although risk ratios for returning to preoperative mobility and achieving unassisted ambulation were statistically insignificant. The rate of reoperation was significantly higher for ORIF versus DFR (12% vs 7%, respectively; P = 0.048). ORIF may offer advantages in patient-reported functional outcomes compared with DFR. Although DFR allows for immediate weight bearing, this advantage may not imply superior long-term mobility.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
