Gardner, Michael J.

Abstract OBJECTIVES: · To determine if patients with knee flexion contracture after distal femur fracture have poorer outcomes than patients who regain full knee extension. · To determine if factors such as patient age, gender, open fracture or implant used favors knee flexion contracture. METHODS: Design: Prospective, multicenter trial Setting: Twenty academic level I trauma centers Patient Selection Criteria: Patients with a distal femur fracture. Patients were evaluated for knee flexion contracture at 3, 6 and 12 months post-operatively. Outcome Measures and Comparisons: SMFA, Bother Index and EQ Health Index scores were recorded. Walking and stair climbing ability were assessed. RESULTS: · 126 patients had radiographic follow up for 12 months. There was clinical follow-up for 99 patients at 3 months, 90 patients at 6 months and 74 pts at 12 months. · Patients with full knee extension had better SMFA scores at 12 months than patients with knee flexion contracture (p = 0.308). · Bother Index (p = 0.29) and EQ Health State (p = 0.12) scores did not demonstrate a difference between patients with or without knee flexion contracture at any time point. · Patients with full knee extension had improved walking ability compared to patients with flexion contracture (p = 0.008). Patients with full knee extension had better stair climbing ability than patients with flexion contracture (p = 0.02). · Only older patient age showed a difference in likelihood of flexion contracture (p = 0.01) The rates of flexion contracture in women versus men (p = 0.51), RIMN versus LLP (p = 0.74) and open versus closed fracture (p = 0.24) were not statistically different. CONCLUSIONS: · Patients with knee flexion contractures after distal femur fracture do worse than patients who regain full extension. · Older patients with distal femur fractures are at greater risk for knee flexion contracture. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine the difference in failure rates of surgical repair for displaced femoral neck fractures in patients younger than 60 years of age according to fixation strategy. METHODS: Design: This is a retrospective, comparative cohort study. Setting: Twenty-six Level 1 North American trauma centers. Patient Selection Criteria: Patients younger than 60 years of age with a displaced femoral neck fracture (OTA 31-B2, B3) undergoing surgical repair from 2005 to 2017. Outcome Measures and Comparisons: Patient demographics, injury characteristics, repair methods used, and treatment failure (nonunion/failed fixation, avascular necrosis, and need for secondary surgery) were compared according to fixation strategy. RESULTS: Five hundred and sixty-five patients met inclusion criteria and were studied. The mean age was 42 years, 36% were female, and the average Pauwels' angle of fractures was 55 degrees. There were 305 patients treated with multiple cannulated screws (MCS) and 260 treated with a fixed-angle (FA) construct. Treatment failures were 46% overall, but was more likely to occur in MCS constructs versus FA devices (55% vs. 36%, P < 0.001). When FA constructs were substratified, the use of a sliding hip screw with addition of a medial femoral neck buttress plate (FNBP) and “antirotation” (AR) screw demonstrated better results than either FNBP or AR screw alone or neither with the lowest overall construct failure rate of 11% (P < 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Historically used fixation constructs for femoral neck fractures (eg, multiple cannulated screws and sliding hip screw) in young and middle-aged adults performed poorly compared with more recently proposed constructs, including those using a medial femoral neck buttress plate and an antirotation screw. Fixed-angle constructs outperformed multiple cannulated screws overall, and augmentation of fixed-angle constructs with a medial femoral neck buttress plate and antirotation screw improved the likelihood of successful treatment. Surgeons should prioritize fixation decisions when repairing displaced femoral neck fractures in patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

OBJECTIVES: To study the results of displaced femoral neck fractures (FNFs) in adults less than 60 years of age by comparing patients, injury, treatment, and the characteristics of treatment failure specifically according to patients' age at injury, that is, by their “decade of life” [ie, “under 30” (29 years and younger), “the 30s” (30–39 years), “the 40s” (40–49 years), and “the 50s” (50–59 years)]. METHODS: Design: Multicenter retrospective comparative cohort series. Setting: Twenty-six North American Level 1 Trauma Centers. Patient Selection Criteria: Skeletally mature patients aged 18–59 years with operative repair of displaced FNFs. Outcome Measures and Comparisons: Main outcome measures were treatment failures (fixation failure and/or nonunion, osteonecrosis, malunion, and the need for subsequent major reconstructive surgery (arthroplasty or proximal femoral osteotomy). These were compared across decades of adult life through middle age (<30 years, 30–39 years, 40–49 years, and 50–59 years). RESULTS: Overall, treatment failure was observed in 264 of 565 (47%) of all hips. The mean age was 42.2 years, 35.8% of patients were women, and the mean Pauwels angle was 53.8 degrees. Complications and the need for major secondary surgeries increased with each increasing decade of life assessed: 36% of failure occurred in patients <30 years of age, 40% in their 30s, 48% in their 40s, and 57% in their 50s ( P < 0.001). Rates of osteonecrosis increased with decades of life (under 30s and 30s vs. 40s vs. 50s developed osteonecrosis in 10%, 10%, 20%, and 27% of hips, P < 0.001), while fixation failure and/or nonunion only increased by decade of life to a level of trend ( P = 0.06). Reparative methods varied widely between decade-long age groups, including reduction type (open vs. closed, P < 0.001), reduction quality ( P = 0.030), and construct type (cannulated screws vs. fixed angle devices, P = 0.024), while some variables evaluated did not change with age group. CONCLUSIONS: Displaced FNFs in young and middle-aged adults are a challenging clinical problem with a high rate of treatment failure. Major complications and the need for complex reconstructive surgery increased greatly by decade of life with the patients in their sixth decade experiencing osteonecrosis at the highest rate seen among patients in the decades studied. Interestingly, treatments provided to patients in their 50s were notably different than those provided to younger patient groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Objectives: The 2 main forms of treatment for distal femur fractures are locked lateral plating and retrograde nailing. The goal of this trial was to determine whether there are significant differences in outcomes between these forms of treatment. Design: Multicenter randomized controlled trial. Setting: Twenty academic trauma centers. Patients/Participants: One hundred sixty patients with distal femur fractures were enrolled. One hundred twenty-six patients were followed 12 months. Patients were randomized to plating in 62 cases and intramedullary nailing in 64 cases. Intervention: Lateral locked plating or retrograde intramedullary nailing. Main Outcome Measurements: Functional scoring including Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment, bother index, EQ Health, and EQ Index. Secondary measures included alignment, operative time, range of motion, union rate, walking ability, ability to manage stairs, and number and type of adverse events. Results: Functional testing showed no difference between the groups. Both groups were still significantly affected by their fracture 12 months after injury. There was more coronal plane valgus in the plating group, which approached statistical significance. Range of motion, walking ability, and ability to manage stairs were similar between the groups. Rate and type of adverse events were not statistically different between the groups. Conclusions: Both lateral locked plating and retrograde intramedullary nailing are reasonable surgical options for these fractures. Patients continue to improve over the course of the year after injury but remain impaired 1 year postoperatively. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Objectives: To evaluate mechanical treatment failure in a large patient cohort sustaining a distal femur fracture treated with a distal femoral locking plate (DFLP). Design: This retrospective case–control series evaluated mechanical treatment failures of DFLPs. Setting: The study was conducted at 8 Level I trauma centers from 2010 to 2017. Patients and Participants: One hundred one patients sustaining OTA/AO 33-A and C distal femur fractures were treated with DFLPs that experienced mechanical failure. Intervention: The intervention included the treatment of a distal femur fracture with a DFLP, affected by mechanical failure (implant failure by loosening or breakage). Main Outcome Measure: The main outcome measures included injury and DFLP details; modes and timing of failure were studied. Results: One hundred forty-six nonunions were found overall (13.4%) including 101 mechanical failures (9.3%). Failures occurred in different manners, locations, and times depending on the DFLPs. For example, 33 of 101 stainless steel (SS) plates (33%) failed by bending or breaking in the working length, whereas no Ti plates failed here ( P < 0.05). Eleven of 12 failures with titanium-Less Invasive Stabilization System (92%) occurred by lost shaft fixation, mostly by the loosening of unicortical screws (91%). Sixteen of 44 variable –angled–LCP failures (36%) occurred at the distal plate–screw junction, whereas only 5 of 61 other DFLPs (8%) failed this way ( P < 0.05). Distal failures occurred on average at 23.7 weeks compared with others that occurred at 38.4 weeks ( P < 0.05). Variable –angled–LCP distal screw–plate junction failures occurred earlier (mean 21.4 weeks). Conclusion: Nonunion and mechanical failure occurred in 14% and 9% of patients, respectively, in this large series of distal femur fracture treated with a DFLP. The mode, location, presence of a prosthesis, and timing of failure varied depending on the characteristics of DFLP. This information should be used to optimize implant usage and design to prolong the period of stable fixation before potential implant failures occur in patients with a prolonged time to union. Level of Evidence: Economic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.