Nail Versus Plate for Distal Femur Fracture: A Propensity-matched Analysis.

Journal and index pages often block iframe embedding. This reader keeps the evidence details in Orthonotes and leaves the source page one click away.

Abstract

[Indexed for MEDLINE] 18. J Orthop Trauma. 2024 Jan 1;38(1):36-41. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000002695. Dual Plate Fixation of Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures. Andring NA(1), Kaupp SM, Henry KA, Helmig KC, Babcock S, Halvorson JJ, Pilson HT, Carroll EA. Author information: (1)Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC. 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. 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