Skip to main content
Download PDF

Optimal surgical treatment for periprosthetic distal femoral fractures after total knee arthroplasty: a Bayesian-based network analysis

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research volume 18, Article number: 122 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The surgical methods for periprosthetic distal femoral fractures (PDFFs) after total knee arthroplasty included locking compression plate (LCP), retrograde intramedullary nailing (RIMN), and distal femoral replacement (DFR). However, the optimal treatment remains controversial. We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to provide the optimal surgical method for PDFFs.

Materials and methods

Electronic databases, including Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PubMed, were searched for studies that compared LCP, RIMN, and DFR for PDFFs. The quality of the included studies was assessed according to the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Pairwise meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager version 5.4. The NMA was conducted in Aggregate Data Drug Information System software version 1.16.5. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for postoperative complications and reoperations.

Results

A total of 19 studies and 1198 patients were included, of whom 733 for LCP, 282 for RIMN, and 183 for DFR. Pairwise meta-analysis comparing LCP to RIMN and LCP to DFR showed no significant difference in complications and reoperations except that RIMN had a higher risk of malunion comparing to LCP (OR 3.05; 95% CI 1.46–6.34; P = 0.003). No statistically significant effects were found in the NMA of overall complications, infection, and reoperation. However, results of rank probabilities showed that DFR ranked best in overall complications and reoperation, RIMN ranked best in infection but worst in reoperation, and LCP ranked worst in infection and middle in reoperation.

Discussion

We found similar complication rate and reoperation rate between LCP, RIMN, and DFR. The results of rank probabilities favored DFR, and further studies with high-level evidence are expected to verify the optimal surgical method for PDFFs.

Level of evidence

Level II; network meta-analysis.

Introduction

With the increasing rate of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures [1], periprosthetic distal femoral fractures (PDFFs) have become more common, with an incidence of 3.5–5.5% [2,3,4]. As these fractures typically occur in older adults with poor bone quality and medical comorbidities, treatment is challenging and outcomes remain dismal, with a 1-year mortality rate up to 27% [5]. Surgical treatment is the mainstay treatment for PDFFs, including locking compression plate (LCP), retrograde intramedullary nailing (RIMN), and distal femoral replacement (DFR) [6].

Generally, the advantages of LCP include direct reduction and multi-angle fixation; however, RIMN requires less dissection of soft tissue, with its load-sharing structure being biomechanically superior to that of LCP [7]. In contrast to internal fixation, DFR allows early weight bearing and mobilization, which are critical for elderly patients [8,9,10]. Due to the complications associated with these surgical methods, the optimal treatment remains controversial [11]. Recent meta-analysis reported similar outcomes of LCP, RIMN, and DFR for PDFFs following TKA [12]. However, traditional meta-analysis can only compare two interventions simultaneously, while network meta-analysis (NMA) allows for the comparison of multiple interventions through combination of direct and indirect evidences.

Thus, we performed this NMA to compare surgical methods including LCP, RIMN, and DFR for PDFFs and figure out the optimal treatment with minimum complication and reoperation.

Materials and methods

This meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) extension statement for NMA [13].

Search strategy

Without limitations on study design, relevant articles were identified by an online literature search of databases, including Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PubMed, from January 2000 to September 2021. Only English studies were eligible in the current study. The references of all eligible articles were screened for additional studies.

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria are as follows: (1) diagnosis of PDFFs after TKA; (2) comparison of at least two of the following surgical treatments: LCP, RIMN, and DFR; and (3) report of postoperative complications or reoperation rates. Two independent reviewers screened the identified studies after eliminating duplicates from the search results. If required, disagreements on the inclusion or exclusion of a study were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer acting as the adjudicator.

Data extraction

Data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers, and the items included the first author’s name, year of publication, study design, age of patients, fracture classification, surgical methods, postoperative complications, and reoperation rate. The accuracy of all extracted data was confirmed before statistical analysis.

Quality assessment

The quality of the included studies was strictly assessed by two independent reviewers according to the Newcastle–Ottawa scale [14].

Statistics analysis

Pairwise meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager version 5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration). For dichotomous variables, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity among the included studies was estimated by chi-squared and I2 tests. The random effects model was employed except if P > 0.1 or I2 < 50%, which was considered less heterogeneous among these studies. In this case, the fixed effects model was applied. P < 0.05 was considered significant difference. We used Bayesian random effects regression model to perform the NMA in Aggregate Data Drug Information System (ADDIS) software version 1.16.5. P < 0.05 and 95% CIs exceeding null values were considered statistically different. Inconsistencies within the NMA were evaluated using inconsistency factors and variance calculations. We applied consistency and inconsistency model to evaluate the results. The consistency of direct and indirect evidence was evaluated based on node-splitting analysis, and P < 0.05 was considered a significant inconsistency. Convergence was assessed by the potential scale reduction factor (PSRF) value. PSPF values close to 1 are considered to be convergent. Furthermore, we assessed the ranking probability for each surgical method. A network plot was conducted by STATA version 14.0.

Results

Study characteristics

Totally, 1284 studies were identified, of which 695 duplicated articles were excluded. After screening the remaining 589 articles, 19 studies were eligible for the meta-analysis [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. A flow diagram of the search strategy and study selection is shown in Fig. 1. All eligible studies were retrospective case series; 11 studies compared LCP and RIMN, 6 studies compared LCP and DFR, and 2 studies compared LCP, RIMN, and DFR. Fracture classifications used in eligible studies included Rorabeck type [34] in 10 studies, Su type [35] in 5 studies, Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification [36] in 3 studies, Neer classification [37] in 1 study, and unified classification system (UCS) [38] in 1 study. A total of 1198 patients were included, of whom 733 for LCP, 282 for RIMN, and 183 for DFR. The characteristics of 19 eligible studies are listed in Table 1. The network plot is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram of study selection

Full size image
Table 1 Characteristics of included studies
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Network plot for overall complications (A), reoperation (B), infection (C)

Full size image

Methodological quality

The quality assessment scores of the included studies, as performed according to the Newcastle–Ottawa scale, are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Newcastle–Ottawa scale of included studies
Full size table

Pairwise meta-analysis

LCP versus RIMN

When comparing LCP and RIMN, the pooled results showed that the LCP group had a higher risk of overall complications (OR 1.19; 95% CI 0.80–1.77; I2 = 25%, P = 0.40, Fig. 3A), infection (OR 2.06; 95% CI 0.61–6.94; I2 = 0%, P = 0.24, Fig. 3B), nonunion (OR 1.22; 95% CI 0.64–2.33; I2 = 34%, P = 0.55, Fig. 3C), and reoperation (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.67–1.96; I2 = 29%, P = 0.62, Fig. 3D), but no statistical significance was found. However, the risk of malunion was significantly higher in the RIMN group (OR 3.05; 95% CI 1.46–6.34; I2 = 0%, P = 0.003, Fig. 3E). No significant associations were found in the risk of 1-year mortality (OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.21–2.10; I2 = 0%, P = 0.48, Fig. 3F).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot of LCP vs. RIMN for overall complications (A), infection (B), nonunion (C), reoperation (D), malunion (E), 1-year mortality (F)

Full size image

LCP versus DFR

The pooled results showed that the LCP group had an increased risk of overall complications (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.63–1.74; I2 = 30%, P = 0.86, Fig. 4A), infection (OR 1.58; 95% CI 0.63–3.94; I2 = 0%, P = 0.33; Fig. 4B), reoperation (OR 1.43; 95% CI 0.81–2.51; I2 = 3%, P = 0.22, Fig. 4C), and 1-year mortality (OR 1.45; 95% CI 0.69–3.03; I2 = 0%, P = 0.32, Fig. 4D), but no significant differences were found.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plot of LCP vs. DFR for overall complications (A), infection (B), reoperation (C), 1-year mortality (D)

Full size image

Network meta-analysis

Inconsistency analysis

All the PSRF values were 1.00–1.02, revealing favorable convergence in the consistency and inconsistency model. As shown in Table 3, the median of the inconsistency factors was close to 0, and the median of the random effects standard deviation (SD) and inconsistency SD was roughly equal. Both showed favorable consistency of the evidence structure. Thus, we chose the consistency analysis for the NMA of overall complications, infection, and reoperation.

Table 3 Results of inconsistency factors and variance calculations for inconsistency analysis
Full size table

Consistency analysis and rank probabilities

The number of studies used to perform the NMA of overall complications, infection, and reoperation were 18, 11, and 19, respectively. However, no statistically significant effects were found in the NMA as shown in Table 4. Results of rank probabilities (Table 5) indicated that DFR had highest score on rank 3 (46%) and RIMN had highest score on rank 1 (45%) in NMA for overall complications (Fig. 5A). Similarly, DFR had highest score on rank 3 (84%) and RIMN had highest score on rank 1 (65%) in NMA for reoperation (Fig. 5B). However, RIMN had highest score on rank 3 (82%) and LCP had highest score on rank 1 (85%) in NMA for infection (Fig. 5C).

Table 4 The network meta-analysis of consistency model
Full size table
Table 5 Results of rank probabilities based on consistency model
Full size table
Fig. 5
figure 5

Results of rank probabilities for overall complications (A), reoperation (B), infection (C)

Full size image

Node-splitting analysis

As shown in Table 6, the P values of node-splitting analysis in the NMA of overall complications, infection, and reoperation were 0.71, 0.14, and 0.52, respectively. The results indicated favorable consistency between direct and indirect evidence.

Table 6 Results of node-splitting analysis
Full size table

Discussion

Identifying optimal surgical treatment for PPDFs is challenging. In the current NMA study, through comparing surgical methods including LCP, RIMN, and DFR, we did detect similar overall complication rate and reoperation rate. However, results of rank probability showed the trend that DFR was related to minimum overall complication and reoperation, RIMN related to maximum complication and reoperation; meanwhile, LCP was in the middle.

Similar outcomes among these three surgical methods have been described by recent studies. Shin et al. reported similar outcomes of LCP and RIMN including operation time, Knee Society Score, time to union, nonunion rate, and revision rate [39]. The same results were detected by Magil et al. They included 10 retrospective studies comparing LCP and RIMN for analysis, and no significant differences were observed [40]. Another meta-analysis performed by Quinzi et al. [12] came into similar conclusion with major complication rate (19%, 16%, 19%) and reoperation rate (15%, 12%, 17%) among LCP, RIMN, and DFR, respectively, whereas the current study did find higher complication rate (27% for LCP, 24% for RIMN, 27% for DFR) since we recorded all documented complications for a comprehensive analysis. However, the reoperation and infection rate of DFR were lower in our study. We attributed this discrepancy to the included study conducted by Ross et al. [15], of which no reoperation was required and infection rate was limited to 3.7% (1/27) in DFR group.

In pairwise analysis, RIMN had a significantly increased risk of malunion comparing to LCP, confirming results reported by prior systematic reviews [41, 42]. They attributed the higher rate of malunion with RIMN to the difficulties obtaining the correct starting point and filling the wide metaphyseal flare. Besides, fewer distal locking screws with RIMN make it hard to maintain reduction. Pelfort et al. examined 23% hyperextension after RIMN procedure without radiological signs of femoral component loosening with patients presenting good function at 6-year follow-up [43]. Lee et al. reported 16% patients with RIMN developed malalignment with 100% union and mean Knee Society Score 81.5 [44]. Considering that malalignment was associated with higher failure rate of TKA [45], we cannot completely rule out the effect of malunion on function in the setting of PDFFs. Further studies focusing on relationship between severity of sagittal and coronal malunion and knee function are expected.

The major advantage of DFR is allowing early weight bearing. A systematic review reported the average time to full weight bearing of RIMN and LCP was 7.6 weeks and 15.8 weeks, respectively [46]. Rubinger et al. showed time to full weight bearing at 1.9 days for DFR [5]. However, 18–50% complication rate and 12.5–25% revision rate of DFR were reported in prior studies [47,48,49]. However, the current NMA found that DFR ranked best in overall complication and reoperation. Studies published within two years supported our results. Stancil et al. revealed 8% complications requiring revision of DFR and 88% patients were allowed immediate weight bearing with good function at 2-year follow-up [50]. Warschawski et al. found 10% complications with mean Knee Society Score 86.25 at average 4-year follow-up [51]. Chalmers et al. reported a 97% 5-year survivorship free from revision of contemporary DFR, and they also found that secondary DFR for PDFFs of failed internal fixation has a 5 times risk of revision relative to primary DFR [52]. We consider that the better outcome reported recently is related to improved surgical techniques. Considering the disadvantages of DFR including invasiveness, more technically challenging than internal fixation, subsequent periprosthetic fractures, extensor mechanism problems, and costs [53], we need more robust evidences to conclude that DFR is the optimal surgical method for PDFFs.

The major limitation of this NMA is that all included studies were retrospectively conducted with low-level evidence. Furthermore, various fracture classifications and implant designs used in the studies may have led to heterogeneity. Finally, clinical outcomes including operative time, knee function, and mortality were not included in the NMA due to insufficient data. Further prospective studies or randomized controlled trials are required.

Conclusions

In summary, we found similar complication rate and reoperation rate between LCP, RIMN, and DFR. The results of rank probabilities favored DFR, and further studies with high-level evidence are expected to verify the optimal surgical method for PDFFs.

Abbreviations

ADDIS:

Aggregate Data Drug Information System

CIs:

Confidence intervals

DFR:

Distal femoral replacement

LCP:

Locking compression plate

NMA:

Network meta-analysis

ORs:

Odds ratios

PDFFs:

Periprosthetic distal femoral fractures

PSRF:

Potential scale reduction factor

RIMN:

Retrograde intramedullary nailing

SD:

Standard deviation

TKA:

Total knee arthroplasty

References

  1. Sloan M, Premkumar A, Sheth NP. Projected volume of primary total joint arthroplasty in the U.S., 2014 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100:1455–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sharkey PF, Lichstein PM, Shen C, et al. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today–has anything changed after 10 years? J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:1774–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pitta M, Esposito CI, Li Z, et al. Failure after modern total knee arthroplasty: a prospective study of 18,065 knees. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33:407–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Della Rocca GJ, Leung KS, Pape HC. Periprosthetic fractures: epidemiology and future projections. J Orthop Trauma. 2011;25(Suppl 2):S66-70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rubinger L, Khalik HA, Gazendam A, et al. Very distal femoral periprosthetic fractures: replacement versus fixation: a systematic review. J Orthop Trauma. 2021;35:573–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lombardo DJ, Siljander MP, Sobh A, et al. Periprosthetic fractures about total knee arthroplasty. Musculoskelet Surg. 2020;104:135–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nauth A, Ristevski B, Bégué T, et al. Periprosthetic distal femur fractures: current concepts. J Orthop Trauma. 2011;25(Suppl 2):S82–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rao B, Kamal T, Vafe J, et al. Distal femoral replacement for selective periprosthetic fractures above a total knee arthroplasty. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2014;40:191–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Saidi K, Ben-Lulu O, Tsuji M, et al. Supracondylar periprosthetic fractures of the knee in the elderly patients: a comparison of treatment using allograft-implant composites, standard revision components, distal femoral replacement prosthesis. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:110–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cannon SR. The use of megaprosthesis in the treatment of periprosthetic knee fractures. Int Orthop. 2015;39:1945–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tosounidis TH, Giannoudis PV. What is new in distal femur periprosthetic fracture fixation? Injury. 2015;46:2293–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Quinzi DA, Ramirez G, Kaplan NB, et al. Early complications and reoperation rates are similar amongst open reduction internal fixation, intramedullary nail, and distal femoral replacement for periprosthetic distal femur fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021;141:997–1006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The prisma extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:777–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the newcastle-ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25:603–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ross LA, Keenan OJF, Magill M, et al. Management of low periprosthetic distal femoral fractures plate fixation versus distal femoral endoprosthesis. Bone Joint J. 2021;103B:635–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gausden EB, Lim PK, Rabonivich A, et al. Outcomes of periprosthetic distal femur fractures following total knee arthroplasty: intramedullary nailing versus plating. Injury-Int J Care Injured. 2021;52:1875–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jennison T, Yarlagadda R. A case series of mortality and morbidity in distal femoral periprosthetic fractures. J Orthop. 2020;18:244–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Garcia Guirao AJ, Andres Cano P, Moreno Dominguez R, et al. Analysis of mortality after surgical treatment of periprosthetic distal femur fractures. Revista espanola de cirugia ortopedica y traumatologia. 2020;64:92–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Darrith B, Bohl DD, Karadsheh MS, et al. Periprosthetic fractures of the distal femur: Is open reduction and internal fixation or distal femoral replacement superior? J Arthroplasty. 2020;35:1402–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kyriakidis T, Kenanidis E, Akula MR, et al. Locking plates versus retrograde intramedullary nails in the treatment of periprosthetic supracondylar knee fractures. A retrospective multicenter comparative study. Injury. 2019;50:1745–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hoellwarth JS, Fourman MS, Crossett L, et al. Equivalent mortality and complication rates following periprosthetic distal femur fractures managed with either lateral locked plating or a distal femoral replacement. Injury-Int J Care Injured. 2018;49:392–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gan G, Teo YH, Kwek EBK. Comparing outcomes of tumor prosthesis revision and locking plate fixation in supracondylar femoral periprosthetic fractures. CiOS Clin Orthopedic Surg. 2018;10:174–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ruder JA, Hart GP, Kneisl JS, et al. Predictors of functional recovery following periprosthetic distal femur fractures. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:1571–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Matlovich NF, Lanting BA, Vasarhelyi EM, et al. Outcomes of surgical management of supracondylar periprosthetic femur fractures. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:189–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Park J, Lee JH. 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. 2016;136:331–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Leino OK, Lempainen L, Virolainen P, et al. Operative results of periprosthetic fractures of the distal femur in a single academic unit. Scand J Surg. 2015;104:200–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Meneghini RM, Keyes BJ, Reddy KK, et al. Modern retrograde intramedullary nails versus periarticular locked plates for supracondylar femur fractures after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:1478–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gondalia V, Choi DH, Lee SC, et al. Periprosthetic supracondylar femoral fractures following total knee arthroplasty: clinical comparison and related complications of the femur plate system and retrograde-inserted supracondylar nail. J Orthop Traumatol. 2014;15:201–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Kilicoglu OI, Akgul T, Saglam Y, et al. Comparison of locked plating and intramedullary nailing for periprosthetic supracondylar femur fractures after knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Belg. 2013;79:417–21.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Horneff JG 3rd, Scolaro JA, Jafari SM, et al. Intramedullary nailing versus locked plate for treating supracondylar periprosthetic femur fractures. Orthopedics. 2013;36:e561–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Aldrian S, Schuster R, Haas N, et al. Fixation of supracondylar femoral fractures following total knee arthroplasty: Is there any difference comparing angular stable plate fixation versus rigid interlocking nail fixation? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133:921–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hou Z, Bowen TR, Irgit K, et al. Locked plating of periprosthetic femur fractures above total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Trauma. 2012;26:427–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Large TM, Kellam JF, Bosse MJ, et al. Locked plating of supracondylar periprosthetic femur fractures. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:115–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rorabeck CH, Taylor JW. Classification of periprosthetic fractures complicating total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 1999;30:209–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J, et al. Fracture and dislocation classification compendium: 2007: orthopaedic trauma association classification, database and outcomes committee. J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21:S1-133.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Neer CS, Grantham SA, Shelton ML. Supracondylar fracture of the adult femur: a study of one hundred and ten cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1967;49:591–613.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Duncan CP, Haddad FS. The unified classification system (ucs): improving our understanding of periprosthetic fractures. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-b:713–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Shin YS, Kim HJ, Lee DH. Similar outcomes of locking compression plating and retrograde intramedullary nailing for periprosthetic supracondylar femoral fractures following total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25:2921–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Magill H, Ponugoti N, Selim A, et al. Locked compression plating versus retrograde intramedullary nailing in the treatment of periprosthetic supracondylar knee fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthopaedic Surg Res. 2021;16:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wallace SS, Bechtold D, Sassoon A. Periprosthetic fractures of the distal femur after total knee arthroplasty : plate versus nail fixation. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017;103:257–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Ristevski B, Nauth A, Williams DS, et al. Systematic review of the treatment of periprosthetic distal femur fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28:307–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Pelfort X, Torres-Claramunt R, Hinarejos P, et al. Extension malunion of the femoral component after retrograde nailing: no sequelae at 6 years. J Orthop Trauma. 2013;27:158–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Lee SS, Lim SJ, Moon YW, et al. Outcomes of long retrograde intramedullary nailing for periprosthetic supracondylar femoral fractures following total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014;134:47–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Ritter MA, Davis KE, Meding JB, et al. The effect of alignment and bmi on failure of total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93:1588–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Shah JK, Szukics P, Gianakos AL, et al. Equivalent union rates between intramedullary nail and locked plate fixation for distal femur periprosthetic fractures: a systematic review. Injury. 2020;51:1062–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Mortazavi SM, Kurd MF, Bender B, et al. Distal femoral arthroplasty for the treatment of periprosthetic fractures after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:775–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Jassim SS, McNamara I, Hopgood P. Distal femoral replacement in periprosthetic fracture around total knee arthroplasty. Injury. 2014;45:550–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Rahman WA, Vial TA, Backstein DJ. Distal femoral arthroplasty for management of periprosthetic supracondylar fractures of the femur. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31:676–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Stancil R, Romm J, Lack W, et al. Distal femoral replacement for fractures allows for early mobilization with low complication rates: a multicenter review. J Knee Surg 2021.

  51. Warschawski Y, Garceau S, Bonyun M, et al. Outcomes of distal femoral arthroplasty after periprosthetic fractures : minimum 2-year follow- up. Acta Orthop Belg. 2021;87:111–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Chalmers BP, Syku M, Gausden EB, et al. Contemporary distal femoral replacements for supracondylar femoral fractures around primary and revision total knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty. 2021;36:S351–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Haidukewych GJ. Role of distal femoral replacement for periprosthetic fractures above a total knee arthroplasty: When and how? J Orthop Trauma. 2019;33:S33–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the support of the Dean of the Jiaxing Second Hospital (G. Chen).

Funding

Financial support was provided by the Jiaxing Science and Technology Bureau (2021AD30117).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Peng Fu and Wenwei Liang contributed equally to this work

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China

    Peng Fu, Wenwei Liang & Weimin Fan

  2. Department of Clinical Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University, Jiaxing, China

    Zhenzhen Gao

  3. Department of Orthopaedics, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University, Jiaxing, China

    Peng Fu & Gang Chen

Authors
  1. Peng Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wenwei Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhenzhen Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gang Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Weimin Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

PF was responsible for the design. GC and WMF provided administrative support. ZG and WWL were responsible for data collection and assembly. PF, ZG, and WWL were responsible for writing the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript. Our study did not require an ethical board approval because it did not contain human or animal trials.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Weimin Fan.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fu, P., Liang, W., Gao, Z. et al. Optimal surgical treatment for periprosthetic distal femoral fractures after total knee arthroplasty: a Bayesian-based network analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 18, 122 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-03586-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-03586-y

Keywords

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

ISSN: 1749-799X