Equivalent union rates between intramedullary nail and locked plate fixation for distal femur periprosthetic fractures - a systematic review.

BACKGROUND

The incidence of periprosthetic fracture following total knee arthroplasty continues to rise as the number of knee arthroplasty procedures increases. Management of periprosthetic fractures can be complex, with locked compression plating (LCP) and intramedullary nailing (IMN) being the most commonly used treatment options. We performed a systematic review to report and compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients treated with intramedullary nail fixation versus plate fixation for periprosthetic fractures of the distal femur.

METHODS

Several databases were screened. Studies evaluating intramedullary nail fixation or locked plate fixation for distal femur periprosthetic fractures were included. Primary and secondary variables as mentioned below, when included, were analyzed and compared.

RESULTS

One prospective comparative study, 9 retrospective comparative studies, and 28 retrospective case series with 1,188 patients were included in this review. No statistically significant differences were found between IMN and LCP when analyzing union rate or time to union. Plating demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in the overall complication rate and reoperation rate when compared with IMN (p<0.003). IMN demonstrated a slightly higher percentage of patients reaching full weight bearing status and a quicker time to full weight bearing (100% and 7.6 weeks) when compared to plating (94% and 15.8 weeks). A higher percentage of patients treated with IMN returned to preinjury activity when compared to those treated with plating (70.8% vs. 61.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Both intramedullary nail and locked plate fixation offer unique benefits in terms of clinical and radiographic outcomes for treatment of periprosthetic distal femur fractures after total knee arthroplasty. While the standard of care remains controversial, an increase in the recent literature has allowed for better clarification of the significant clinicoradiologic advantages and disadvantages of both popular treatment options.