2010 Mid-America Orthopaedic Association Physician in Training Award: Healing Complications Are Common After Locked Plating for Distal Femur Fractures
- First Online:
- 595 Downloads
Several mechanical studies suggest locking plate constructs may inhibit callus necessary for healing of distal femur fractures. However, the rate of nonunion and factors associated with nonunion are not well established.
We (1) determined the healing rate of distal femur fractures treated with locking plates, (2) assessed the effect of patient injury and treatment variables on fracture healing, and (3) compared callus formation in fractures that healed with those that did not heal.
Patients and Methods
We retrospectively reviewed 82 patients treated with 86 distal femur fractures using lateral locking plates. We reviewed all charts and radiographs to determine patient and treatment variables and then determined the effects of these variables on healing. We quantitatively measured callus at 6, 12, and 24 weeks. The minimum time for telephone interviews and SF-36v2TM scores was 1 year (mean, 4.2 years; range, 1–7.2 years).
Fourteen fractures (20%) failed to unite. Demographics and comorbidities were similar in patients who achieved healing compared with those who had nonunions. There were more empty holes in the plate adjacent to fractures that healed; comminuted fractures failed to heal more frequently than less comminuted fractures. Less callus formed in fractures with nonunions and in patients treated with stainless steel plates compared with titanium plates. Complications occurred in 28 of 70 fractures (40%), 19 of which had additional surgery.
We found a high rate of nonunion in distal femur fractures treated with locking plates. Nonunion presented late without hardware failure and with limited callus formation suggesting callus inhibition rather than hardware failure is the primary problem. Mechanical factors may play a role in the high rate of nonunion.
Level of Evidence
Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
- 6.Fankhauser F, Gruber G, Schippinger G, Boldin C, Hofer HP, Grechenig W, Szyszkowitz R. Minimal-invasive treatment of distal femoral fractures with the LISS (Less Invasive Stabilization System): a prospective study of 30 fractures with a follow up of 20 months. Acta Orthop Scand. 2004;75:56–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Gaines RJ, Sanders R, Sagi HC, Haidukewych GJ. Titanium versus stainless steel locked plates for distal femur fractures: is there any difference? OTA abstract. 2008: Paper Number 55.Google Scholar
- 24.Orthopaedic Trauma Association Committee for Coding and Classification. Fracture and dislocation compendium. J Orthop Trauma. 1996;10(suppl 1):v–ix, 1–154.Google Scholar
- 25.Paley D. Principles of Deformity Correction. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 2002.Google Scholar
- 28.Schutz M, Muller M, Krettek C, Hontzsch D, Regazzoni P, Ganz R, Hass N. Minimally invasive fracture stabilization of distal femoral fractures with the LISS: a prospective multicenter study. Results of a clinical study with special emphasis on difficult cases. Injury. 2001;32(suppl 3):SC48–SC54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.Ware JE, Kosinski M, Dewey JE. How to Score Version 2 of the SF-36 Health Survey. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Inc; 2000.Google Scholar