Scholarlink

Introduction <p>Periprosthetic distal femur fractures are often considered more complex and morbid than native distal femur fractures, yet few studies directly compare them. This study aimed to compare patient characteristics, treatment strategies, and early complications between native and periprosthetic distal femur fractures using the Lewis–Rorabeck classification.</p> Methods <p>We retrospectively analyzed 152 patients treated surgically for distal femur fractures at a level I trauma center. Cases included native fractures (<i>n</i> = 90) and periprosthetic distal femur fractures (<i>n</i> = 62), further divided into Lewis–Rorabeck Type I/II (<i>n</i> = 49) and Type III (<i>n</i> = 13). Demographics, comorbidities, surgical details, and in-hospital complications were assessed. We conducted a multivariate analysis comparing native fractures with Lewis–Rorabeck Type I/II fractures, as well as comparing Type I/II with Type III fractures.</p> Results <p>Patients with periprosthetic fractures were older and had higher BMI than those with native fractures (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed no significant differences in surgery duration, mortality, mobility at discharge, transfusion needs, or revision rates between native distal femur fractures (AO/OTA Type A) and Lewis–Rorabeck Type I/II. The complication rate was significantly lower in the periprosthetic group (<i>p</i> = 0.029). Lewis–Rorabeck Type III fractures showed significantly longer time to surgery (<i>p</i> = 0.015) and revision surgery was performed more frequently compared to Lewis–Rorabeck Type I/II fractures. However, no differences were observed in early postoperative complications, mobility at discharge, or length of hospital stay.</p> Conclusion <p>This study directly compares periprosthetic distal femur fractures stratified by implant stability to native distal femur fractures. The findings challenge the perception that periprosthetic fractures are universally more difficult to treat. Periprosthetic fractures achieve results comparable to native fractures. The increased complexity of Lewis–Rorabeck Type III fractures is reflected in prolonged time to surgery and an increased need for revision surgery.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Challenging the myth: comparing early complications of native and periprosthetic distal femur fractures. The role of implant stability

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月7日

查看全文
  • Christopher Lampert,
  • Leon Faust,
  • Gautier Beckers,
  • Adrian Cavalcanti Kußmaul,
  • Boris Michael Holzapfel,
  • Wolfgang Böcker,
  • Carl Neuerburg,
  • Florian Pachmann

摘要

Introduction

Periprosthetic distal femur fractures are often considered more complex and morbid than native distal femur fractures, yet few studies directly compare them. This study aimed to compare patient characteristics, treatment strategies, and early complications between native and periprosthetic distal femur fractures using the Lewis–Rorabeck classification.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 152 patients treated surgically for distal femur fractures at a level I trauma center. Cases included native fractures (n = 90) and periprosthetic distal femur fractures (n = 62), further divided into Lewis–Rorabeck Type I/II (n = 49) and Type III (n = 13). Demographics, comorbidities, surgical details, and in-hospital complications were assessed. We conducted a multivariate analysis comparing native fractures with Lewis–Rorabeck Type I/II fractures, as well as comparing Type I/II with Type III fractures.

Results

Patients with periprosthetic fractures were older and had higher BMI than those with native fractures (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed no significant differences in surgery duration, mortality, mobility at discharge, transfusion needs, or revision rates between native distal femur fractures (AO/OTA Type A) and Lewis–Rorabeck Type I/II. The complication rate was significantly lower in the periprosthetic group (p = 0.029). Lewis–Rorabeck Type III fractures showed significantly longer time to surgery (p = 0.015) and revision surgery was performed more frequently compared to Lewis–Rorabeck Type I/II fractures. However, no differences were observed in early postoperative complications, mobility at discharge, or length of hospital stay.

Conclusion

This study directly compares periprosthetic distal femur fractures stratified by implant stability to native distal femur fractures. The findings challenge the perception that periprosthetic fractures are universally more difficult to treat. Periprosthetic fractures achieve results comparable to native fractures. The increased complexity of Lewis–Rorabeck Type III fractures is reflected in prolonged time to surgery and an increased need for revision surgery.