Nicholas A Andring, Shannon M Kaupp, Kaitlin A Henry, Kathryn C Helmig, Sharon Babcock, Jason J Halvorson, Holly T Pilson, Eben A Carroll
{"title":"股骨远端假体周围骨折的双钢板固定术","authors":"Nicholas A Andring, Shannon M Kaupp, Kaitlin A Henry, Kathryn C Helmig, Sharon Babcock, Jason J Halvorson, Holly T Pilson, Eben A Carroll","doi":"10.1097/BOT.0000000000002695","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Dual implants for distal femur periprosthetic fractures is a growing area of interest for these challenging fractures with dual plating (DP) emerging as a viable construct for these injuries. In the current study, an experience with DP constructs is described.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong></p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective case series with comparison group.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Level 1 academic trauma center.</p><p><strong>Patient selection criteria: </strong>Adults >50 years old sustaining comminuted OTA/AO 33-A2 or 33-A3 DFPF treated with either DP or a single distal femur locking plating (DFLP). Patients with simple 33-A1 fractures were excluded. Prior to 2018, patients underwent DFLP after which the treatment of choice became DP.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures and comparisons: </strong>Reoperation rate, alignment, and complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>34 patients treated with DFLP and 38 with DP met inclusion and follow up criteria. Average follow up was 18.2 ± 13.8 months in the DFLP group and 19.8 ± 16.1 months in the DP group ( P = 0.339). The average patient age in the DFLP group was 74.8 ± 7.3 years compared to 75.9 ± 11.3 years in the DP group. There were no statistical differences in demographics, fracture morphology, loss of reduction, or reoperation for any cause ( P >.05). DP patients were more likely to be weight bearing in the twelve-week postoperative period ( P <0.001) and return to their baseline ambulatory status ( P = 0.004) compared to DFLP patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Dual plating of distal femoral periprosthetic fractures maintained coronal alignment with a low reoperation rate even with immediate weight bearing and these patients regained baseline level of ambulation more reliably as compared to patients treated with a single distal femoral locking plate.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":16644,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma","volume":" ","pages":"36-41"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dual Plate Fixation of Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures.\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas A Andring, Shannon M Kaupp, Kaitlin A Henry, Kathryn C Helmig, Sharon Babcock, Jason J Halvorson, Holly T Pilson, Eben A Carroll\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/BOT.0000000000002695\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Dual implants for distal femur periprosthetic fractures is a growing area of interest for these challenging fractures with dual plating (DP) emerging as a viable construct for these injuries. In the current study, an experience with DP constructs is described.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong></p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective case series with comparison group.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Level 1 academic trauma center.</p><p><strong>Patient selection criteria: </strong>Adults >50 years old sustaining comminuted OTA/AO 33-A2 or 33-A3 DFPF treated with either DP or a single distal femur locking plating (DFLP). Patients with simple 33-A1 fractures were excluded. Prior to 2018, patients underwent DFLP after which the treatment of choice became DP.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures and comparisons: </strong>Reoperation rate, alignment, and complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>34 patients treated with DFLP and 38 with DP met inclusion and follow up criteria. Average follow up was 18.2 ± 13.8 months in the DFLP group and 19.8 ± 16.1 months in the DP group ( P = 0.339). The average patient age in the DFLP group was 74.8 ± 7.3 years compared to 75.9 ± 11.3 years in the DP group. There were no statistical differences in demographics, fracture morphology, loss of reduction, or reoperation for any cause ( P >.05). DP patients were more likely to be weight bearing in the twelve-week postoperative period ( P <0.001) and return to their baseline ambulatory status ( P = 0.004) compared to DFLP patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Dual plating of distal femoral periprosthetic fractures maintained coronal alignment with a low reoperation rate even with immediate weight bearing and these patients regained baseline level of ambulation more reliably as compared to patients treated with a single distal femoral locking plate.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16644,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"36-41\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000002695\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000002695","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Dual Plate Fixation of Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures.
Objectives: Dual implants for distal femur periprosthetic fractures is a growing area of interest for these challenging fractures with dual plating (DP) emerging as a viable construct for these injuries. In the current study, an experience with DP constructs is described.
Methods:
Design: Retrospective case series with comparison group.
Setting: Level 1 academic trauma center.
Patient selection criteria: Adults >50 years old sustaining comminuted OTA/AO 33-A2 or 33-A3 DFPF treated with either DP or a single distal femur locking plating (DFLP). Patients with simple 33-A1 fractures were excluded. Prior to 2018, patients underwent DFLP after which the treatment of choice became DP.
Outcome measures and comparisons: Reoperation rate, alignment, and complications.
Results: 34 patients treated with DFLP and 38 with DP met inclusion and follow up criteria. Average follow up was 18.2 ± 13.8 months in the DFLP group and 19.8 ± 16.1 months in the DP group ( P = 0.339). The average patient age in the DFLP group was 74.8 ± 7.3 years compared to 75.9 ± 11.3 years in the DP group. There were no statistical differences in demographics, fracture morphology, loss of reduction, or reoperation for any cause ( P >.05). DP patients were more likely to be weight bearing in the twelve-week postoperative period ( P <0.001) and return to their baseline ambulatory status ( P = 0.004) compared to DFLP patients.
Conclusions: Dual plating of distal femoral periprosthetic fractures maintained coronal alignment with a low reoperation rate even with immediate weight bearing and these patients regained baseline level of ambulation more reliably as compared to patients treated with a single distal femoral locking plate.
Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma is devoted exclusively to the diagnosis and management of hard and soft tissue trauma, including injuries to bone, muscle, ligament, and tendons, as well as spinal cord injuries. Under the guidance of a distinguished international board of editors, the journal provides the most current information on diagnostic techniques, new and improved surgical instruments and procedures, surgical implants and prosthetic devices, bioplastics and biometals; and physical therapy and rehabilitation.