distal femoral replacement
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

58
(FIVE YEARS 25)

H-INDEX

11
(FIVE YEARS 3)

The Knee ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 33 ◽  
pp. 17-23
Author(s):  
Joshua R. Labott ◽  
Elyse J. Brinkmann ◽  
Mario Hevesi ◽  
Cory G. Couch ◽  
Peter S. Rose ◽  
...  

Cureus ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ifeanyi K Onubogu ◽  
Sanjana Relwani ◽  
Urpinder S Grewal ◽  
Jagmeet S Bhamra ◽  
Kumar Gaddam Reddy ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_6) ◽  
Author(s):  
K L Ang ◽  
W Cheah ◽  
H Jesani ◽  
R Ooi ◽  
S Agarwal

Abstract Aim To evaluate the outcome of distal femoral replacements versus internal fixation for elderly patients with distal femoral periprosthetic fracture in a single institution. Method A five-year retrospective observational study was conducted of a consecutive series of patients with distal femoral periprosthetic fracture who underwent either distal femoral replacement (DFR) or internal fixation (IF) in a tertiary referral centre. Clinical information analysed included patient demographics, co-morbidities, interval between primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to distal femoral periprosthetic fracture, type of fracture, operative technique, preoperative ASA grade, post-operative complications, intensive therapy unit (ITU) stay, length of hospital stay (LOS), re-fixation and mortality. Results Study included 27 patients of which fourteen patients underwent a DFR while 13 underwent an IF. 89% of the patients were females. Mean age of the patients at the time of fracture was 85 versus 80 (DFR vs IF). The mean interval from the primary TKA to the fracture were 80 months (range 0-181). There were no intraoperative complications in either group. Three patients required ITU stay from the DFR group while one patient from the IF group required re-fixation. Median LOS was 56 days (range 9-144) after DFR and 55 days (range 4-83) after IF. There was one 30-day mortality in the DFR group. One-year mortality for the DFR group was 7% vs 15% for the IF group. Conclusions In our study, DFR and IF were observed to have similar LOS with a higher mortality in the IF group at one year. There was one re-fixation in the IF group.


The Knee ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 31 ◽  
pp. 97-109
Author(s):  
Rohit Dhawan ◽  
Richard Spencer Jones ◽  
Paul Cool

Author(s):  
Meagan E. Tibbo ◽  
Joshua A. Parry ◽  
Mario Hevesi ◽  
Matthew P. Abdel ◽  
Brandon J. Yuan

Author(s):  
Ryan Stancil ◽  
Jacob Romm ◽  
William Lack ◽  
Frank Bohnenkamp ◽  
Stephen Sems ◽  
...  

AbstractPeriprosthetic fractures around a total knee arthroplasty (TKA), comminuted and intra-articular femur fractures, or fracture nonunions in osteoporotic bone represent technically challenging problems. This is particularly true when the fracture involves a loose femoral component or the pattern results in suboptimal fixation potential. These clinical indications often arise in an older and comorbid patient population in whom a principal goal of treatment includes allowing for early mobilization. Limited data indicate that arthroplasty via distal femoral replacement (DFR) is a reasonable alternative to open reduction and internal fixation, allowing for early ambulation with low complication rates. We performed a retrospective review of trauma and arthroplasty surgeries at three tertiary referral institutions. Adult patients treated for the above with a DFR were included. Patients with active infection, open and/or high-energy injuries and revisions unrelated to fracture were excluded. Patient demographics, treatment details, and outcomes were assessed. Between 2002 and 2017, 90 DFR's were performed for the above indications with a mean follow-up of 24 months. Postoperatively, 80 patients (88%) were allowed to weight bear as tolerated, and at final follow-up, 9 patients (10%) remained dependent on a wheelchair. The average arc of motion at final follow-up was 95 degrees. There were seven (8%) implant-related complications requiring secondary surgeries: two infections, one with associated component loosening; one fracture of the hinge mechanism and one femoral component failure in conjunction with a patellofemoral dislocation (both requiring revision); one case of patellofemoral arthrosis in a patient with an unresurfaced patella; one periprosthetic fracture with associated wound dehiscence; and one case of arthrofibrosis. In each of these cases, only modular components of the DFR were exchanged. All nonmodular components cemented into the femur or tibia were retained. DFR provides a viable reconstruction option in the treatment of acute distal femur fractures, periprosthetic femur fractures, and fracture nonunions. We noted that in an elderly patient population with high comorbidities, the complication and secondary surgery rates remained relatively low, while allowing for immediate weight bearing.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document