Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of retrograde nailing and minimally invasive plating for treatment of periprosthetic supracondylar femur fractures (OTA 33-A) above total knee arthroplasty

  • Trauma Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Retrograde intramedullary (IM) nailing and minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) using locking plate are typically considered the gold standards of treatment for periprosthetic supracondylar femoral fractures above total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Methods

Forty-one consecutive patients treated with either retrograde nailing (nail group, n = 20) or minimally invasive plating (plate group, n = 21) for periprosthetic supracondylar femoral fractures between March 2003 and January 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical functions [arc range of motion and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score] and bony outcomes (bony union and malunion) were evaluated.

Results

There was no statistical difference between the nail and plate groups in age (p = 0.665), one-year postoperative arc range of motion (p = 0.642), preoperative WOMAC score (p = 0.076), postoperative one-year WOMAC score (p = 0.135), and union time (p = 0.081). The mean union time of the nail group and the plate group was 4.3 months (range 3–12 months) and 3.6 months (range 3–5 months), respectively. There were three cases of malalignment in the nail group, whereas there was one case of malalignment in the plate group (p = 0.343). One case of nailing using a short nail demonstrated nail breakage.

Conclusions

Although retrograde nailing was found to have a slightly higher rate of malunion compared to minimally invasive plating, there was no statistically significant difference between both treatment options in terms of clinical outcomes. Regardless of which implant is used, the proper application is essential in management of periprosthetic supracondylar femoral fractures above TKA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ritter MA, Faris PM, Keating EM (1988) Anterior femoral notching and ipsilateral supracondylar femur fracture in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 3(2):185–187

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Su ET, DeWal H, Di Cesare PE (2004) Periprosthetic femoral fractures above total knee replacements. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 12(1):12–20

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Healy WL, Siliski JM, Incavo SJ (1993) Operative treatment of distal femoral fractures proximal to total knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75(1):27–34

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Zehntner MK, Ganz R (1993) Internal fixation of supracondylar fractures after condylar total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 293:219–224

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Althausen PL, Lee MA, Finkemeier CG, Meehan JP, Rodrigo JJ (2003) Operative stabilization of supracondylar femur fractures above total knee arthroplasty: a comparison of four treatment methods. J Arthroplasty 18(7):834–839

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ritter MA, Keating EM, Faris PM, Meding JB (1995) Rush rod fixation of supracondylar fractures above total knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 10(2):213–216

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Erhardt JB, Grob K, Roderer G, Hoffmann A, Forster TN, Kuster MS (2008) Treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures with the non-contact bridging plate: a new angular stable implant. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128(4):409–416. doi:10.1007/s00402-007-0396-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Simon RG, Brinker MR (1999) Use of Ilizarov external fixation for a periprosthetic supracondylar femur fracture. J Arthroplasty 14(1):118–121

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ricci WM, Loftus T, Cox C, Borrelli J (2006) Locked plates combined with minimally invasive insertion technique for the treatment of periprosthetic supracondylar femur fractures above a total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Trauma 20(3):190–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kolb W, Guhlmann H, Windisch C, Marx F, Koller H, Kolb K (2010) Fixation of periprosthetic femur fractures above total knee arthroplasty with the less invasive stabilization system: a midterm follow-up study. J Trauma 69(3):670–676. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e3181c9ba3b

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kregor PJ, Hughes JL, Cole PA (2001) Fixation of distal femoral fractures above total knee arthroplasty utilizing the Less Invasive Stabilization System (L.I.S.S.). Injury 32 Suppl 3:SC64–75

  12. Ricci W (2013) Classification and treatment of periprosthetic supracondylar femur fractures. J Knee Surg 26(1):9–14. doi:10.1055/s-0033-1333901

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Herrera DA, Kregor PJ, Cole PA, Levy BA, Jonsson A, Zlowodzki M (2008) Treatment of acute distal femur fractures above a total knee arthroplasty: systematic review of 415 cases (1981–2006). Acta Orthop 79(1):22–27. doi:10.1080/17453670710014716

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bong MR, Egol KA, Koval KJ, Kummer FJ, Su ET, Iesaka K, Bayer J, Di Cesare PE (2002) Comparison of the LISS and a retrograde-inserted supracondylar intramedullary nail for fixation of a periprosthetic distal femur fracture proximal to a total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17(7):876–881

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Meneghini RM, Keyes BJ, Reddy KK, Maar DC (2014) Modern retrograde intramedullary nails versus periarticular locked plates for supracondylar femur fractures after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 29(7):1478–1481. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.01.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rorabeck CH, Taylor JW (1999) Periprosthetic fractures of the femur complicating total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 30(2):265–277

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Park J, Yang KH (2013) Indications and outcomes of augmentation plating with decortication and autogenous bone grafting for femoral shaft nonunions. Injury 44(12):1820–1825. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2013.02.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lingard EA, Katz JN, Wright RJ, Wright EA, Sledge CB (2001) Validity and responsiveness of the knee society clinical rating system in comparison with the SF-36 and WOMAC. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A(12):1856–1864

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lau TW, Leung F, Chan CF, Chow SP (2007) Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis in the treatment of proximal humeral fracture. Int Orthop 31(5):657–664. doi:10.1007/s00264-006-0242-4

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Farouk O, Krettek C, Miclau T, Schandelmaier P, Guy P, Tscherne H (1999) Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis: does percutaneous plating disrupt femoral blood supply less than the traditional technique? J Orthop Trauma 13(6):401–406

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gliatis J, Megas P, Panagiotopoulos E, Lambiris E (2005) Midterm results of treatment with a retrograde nail for supracondylar periprosthetic fractures of the femur following total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Trauma 19(3):164–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Krettek C, Miclau T, Schandelmaier P, Stephan C, Mohlmann U, Tscherne H (1999) The mechanical effect of blocking screws (“Poller screws”) in stabilizing tibia fractures with short proximal or distal fragments after insertion of small-diameter intramedullary nails. J Orthop Trauma 13(8):550–553

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Seyhan M, Cakmak S, Donmez F, Gereli A (2013) Blocking screws for the treatment of distal femur fractures. Orthopedics 36(7):e936–e941. doi:10.3928/01477447-20130624-26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chettiar K, Jackson MP, Brewin J, Dass D, Butler-Manuel PA (2009) Supracondylar periprosthetic femoral fractures following total knee arthroplasty: treatment with a retrograde intramedullary nail. Int Orthop 33(4):981–985. doi:10.1007/s00264-008-0587-y

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Catholic Kwandong University, International St. Mary’s Hospital, 25, Simgok-ro 100 beon-gil, Seo-gu, Incheon, 404-834, Republic of Korea

      Jin Park

    2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Medical School and Research Institute of Clinical Medicine, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea

      Jin Park & Ju Hong Lee

    Authors
    1. Jin Park
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Ju Hong Lee
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Jin Park.

    Ethics declarations

    Conflicts of interest and source of funding

    No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.

    Additional information

    J. Park, J. H. Lee contributed equally to this work.

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Park, J., Lee, J.H. Comparison of retrograde nailing and minimally invasive plating for treatment of periprosthetic supracondylar femur fractures (OTA 33-A) above total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136, 331–338 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2374-8

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2374-8

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation