Nicholson Tyler C, Patrick Cole M, Tihista Mikel C, Polmear Michael M, Purcell Richard L, Parnes Nata
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center, Fort Cavazos, Texas.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, William Beaumont Army Medical Center, Fort Bliss, Texas; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Texas Tech University Health Science Center El Paso, El Paso, Texas.
J Arthroplasty. 2025 Sep;40(9):2320-2326.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2025.02.076. Epub 2025 Mar 7.
Primary and revision arthroplasty has emerged as an alternative option for the treatment of distal femoral fractures. The purpose of this study was to identify any trends in the management of distal femoral fractures among American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) Part II Candidates with regard to the utilization of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus total joint arthroplasty, and to investigate the complications associated with these two treatment strategies.
This was a retrospective cohort study of the ABOS Part II Oral Examination Case List Database which was queried between the years 2003 and 2021. The inclusion criteria consisted of adult patients who sustained a distal femoral fracture and underwent either ORIF or arthroplasty.
The proportion of distal femoral fractures treated with arthroplasty compared to ORIF increased throughout the study period by 0.28% per year (P < 0.001) overall and 1.2% per year (P < 0.001) among arthroplasty-trained surgeons. Medical and surgical complications occurred at a significantly higher rate in patients after arthroplasty as compared to ORIF (31.5 versus 20.9%, P < 0.001; 29.0 versus 17.5%, P < 0.001, respectively). Reoperation and readmission were also higher following arthroplasty (10.8 versus 6.2%, P = 0.002; and 16.5 versus 9.3%, P < 0.001, respectively).
Distal femoral fractures occurred more commonly and more of them were treated with arthroplasty. In the hands of surgeons who are early in their career, this treatment option may be associated with increased rates of revision, reoperation, and readmission.
初次和翻修关节成形术已成为治疗股骨远端骨折的一种替代选择。本研究的目的是确定美国骨科医师协会(ABOS)第二部分候选人在股骨远端骨折治疗中,关于切开复位内固定(ORIF)与全关节置换术的使用趋势,并调查与这两种治疗策略相关的并发症。
这是一项对ABOS第二部分口试病例列表数据库的回顾性队列研究,该数据库于2003年至2021年期间进行查询。纳入标准包括成年股骨远端骨折患者,且接受了ORIF或关节置换术。
在整个研究期间,与ORIF相比,接受关节置换术治疗的股骨远端骨折比例总体上每年增加0.28%(P<0.001),在接受关节置换术培训的外科医生中每年增加1.2%(P<0.001)。与ORIF相比,关节置换术后患者的内科和外科并发症发生率显著更高(分别为31.5%对20.9%,P<0.001;29.0%对17.5%,P<0.001)。关节置换术后再次手术和再次入院率也更高(分别为10.8%对6.2%,P=0.002;16.5%对9.3%,P<0.001)。
股骨远端骨折更常见,且更多采用关节置换术治疗。在职业生涯早期的外科医生手中,这种治疗选择可能与翻修、再次手术和再次入院率增加有关。