Distal femoral replacement for acute distal femoral fractures in elderly patients

Clayton C. Bettin, John C. Weinlein, Patrick C. Toy, Robert Heck

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate outcomes and complications using cemented modular distal femoral replacement in elderly patients with distal femoral fractures. Design: Retrospective chart review, case series. Setting: A Level 1 and Level 2 trauma center, both tertiary referral hospitals. Patients/Participants: Eighteen patients older than 60 years (average age 77 years) who had cemented distal femoral replacement for distal femoral fractures (comminuted, intraarticular, osteoporotic, arthritic) between 2005 and 2013. Patients with previous knee surgery were excluded. Intervention: Cemented modular distal femoral replacement. Main Outcome Measures: Implant status, complications, Knee Society Score, Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index. Results: All patients were extremely or very satisfied with their outcomes. For patients with functional outcome data, Knee Society Score averaged 85.7 with a functional score of 35, Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score averaged 19.2, and Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index score averaged 23.1 at an average follow-up of 2.3 years. Range of motion was 1-99 degrees. Implant-related complications occurred in 2 patients (11%); one required revision to total femoral replacement because of periprosthetic fracture and the other had a deep infection that required exchange of the components. No patient had aseptic loosening or patellar maltracking. There were no perioperative deaths or late amputations. Conclusions: Cemented modular distal femoral replacement is a viable treatment option in elderly patients that permits immediate full weight-bearing, with most patients returning to preoperative functional status. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)503-509
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Orthopaedic Trauma
Volume30
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2016

Fingerprint

Femoral Fractures
Thigh
Ontario
Osteoarthritis
Periprosthetic Fractures
Trauma Centers
Weight-Bearing
Articular Range of Motion
Amputation
Tertiary Care Centers
Arthritis
Neoplasms
Knee
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Distal femoral replacement for acute distal femoral fractures in elderly patients. / Bettin, Clayton C.; Weinlein, John C.; Toy, Patrick C.; Heck, Robert.

In: Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, Vol. 30, No. 9, 01.09.2016, p. 503-509.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bettin, Clayton C. ; Weinlein, John C. ; Toy, Patrick C. ; Heck, Robert. / Distal femoral replacement for acute distal femoral fractures in elderly patients. In: Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma. 2016 ; Vol. 30, No. 9. pp. 503-509.
@article{054a2920a6e94707928b008a5edfff5f,
title = "Distal femoral replacement for acute distal femoral fractures in elderly patients",
abstract = "Objectives: To evaluate outcomes and complications using cemented modular distal femoral replacement in elderly patients with distal femoral fractures. Design: Retrospective chart review, case series. Setting: A Level 1 and Level 2 trauma center, both tertiary referral hospitals. Patients/Participants: Eighteen patients older than 60 years (average age 77 years) who had cemented distal femoral replacement for distal femoral fractures (comminuted, intraarticular, osteoporotic, arthritic) between 2005 and 2013. Patients with previous knee surgery were excluded. Intervention: Cemented modular distal femoral replacement. Main Outcome Measures: Implant status, complications, Knee Society Score, Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index. Results: All patients were extremely or very satisfied with their outcomes. For patients with functional outcome data, Knee Society Score averaged 85.7 with a functional score of 35, Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score averaged 19.2, and Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index score averaged 23.1 at an average follow-up of 2.3 years. Range of motion was 1-99 degrees. Implant-related complications occurred in 2 patients (11{\%}); one required revision to total femoral replacement because of periprosthetic fracture and the other had a deep infection that required exchange of the components. No patient had aseptic loosening or patellar maltracking. There were no perioperative deaths or late amputations. Conclusions: Cemented modular distal femoral replacement is a viable treatment option in elderly patients that permits immediate full weight-bearing, with most patients returning to preoperative functional status. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.",
author = "Bettin, {Clayton C.} and Weinlein, {John C.} and Toy, {Patrick C.} and Robert Heck",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/BOT.0000000000000600",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "30",
pages = "503--509",
journal = "Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma",
issn = "0890-5339",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Distal femoral replacement for acute distal femoral fractures in elderly patients

AU - Bettin, Clayton C.

AU - Weinlein, John C.

AU - Toy, Patrick C.

AU - Heck, Robert

PY - 2016/9/1

Y1 - 2016/9/1

N2 - Objectives: To evaluate outcomes and complications using cemented modular distal femoral replacement in elderly patients with distal femoral fractures. Design: Retrospective chart review, case series. Setting: A Level 1 and Level 2 trauma center, both tertiary referral hospitals. Patients/Participants: Eighteen patients older than 60 years (average age 77 years) who had cemented distal femoral replacement for distal femoral fractures (comminuted, intraarticular, osteoporotic, arthritic) between 2005 and 2013. Patients with previous knee surgery were excluded. Intervention: Cemented modular distal femoral replacement. Main Outcome Measures: Implant status, complications, Knee Society Score, Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index. Results: All patients were extremely or very satisfied with their outcomes. For patients with functional outcome data, Knee Society Score averaged 85.7 with a functional score of 35, Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score averaged 19.2, and Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index score averaged 23.1 at an average follow-up of 2.3 years. Range of motion was 1-99 degrees. Implant-related complications occurred in 2 patients (11%); one required revision to total femoral replacement because of periprosthetic fracture and the other had a deep infection that required exchange of the components. No patient had aseptic loosening or patellar maltracking. There were no perioperative deaths or late amputations. Conclusions: Cemented modular distal femoral replacement is a viable treatment option in elderly patients that permits immediate full weight-bearing, with most patients returning to preoperative functional status. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

AB - Objectives: To evaluate outcomes and complications using cemented modular distal femoral replacement in elderly patients with distal femoral fractures. Design: Retrospective chart review, case series. Setting: A Level 1 and Level 2 trauma center, both tertiary referral hospitals. Patients/Participants: Eighteen patients older than 60 years (average age 77 years) who had cemented distal femoral replacement for distal femoral fractures (comminuted, intraarticular, osteoporotic, arthritic) between 2005 and 2013. Patients with previous knee surgery were excluded. Intervention: Cemented modular distal femoral replacement. Main Outcome Measures: Implant status, complications, Knee Society Score, Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index. Results: All patients were extremely or very satisfied with their outcomes. For patients with functional outcome data, Knee Society Score averaged 85.7 with a functional score of 35, Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score averaged 19.2, and Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index score averaged 23.1 at an average follow-up of 2.3 years. Range of motion was 1-99 degrees. Implant-related complications occurred in 2 patients (11%); one required revision to total femoral replacement because of periprosthetic fracture and the other had a deep infection that required exchange of the components. No patient had aseptic loosening or patellar maltracking. There were no perioperative deaths or late amputations. Conclusions: Cemented modular distal femoral replacement is a viable treatment option in elderly patients that permits immediate full weight-bearing, with most patients returning to preoperative functional status. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84963623376&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84963623376&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000600

DO - 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000600

M3 - Article

VL - 30

SP - 503

EP - 509

JO - Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma

JF - Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma

SN - 0890-5339

IS - 9

ER -