Diego Edwards^1,2*, Zoy Anastasiadis^1,2, Rodrigo Guiloff^2a, Tamara Piderit^1c, Sebastián Bettancourt^2b, Sergio Arellano ^1,2, Andrés Schmidt-Hebbel^1,2 and Alex Vaisman^1,2

¹Knee Surgery Division, Hospital Padre Hurtado, Chile

*Corresponding Author: Diego Edwards, Knee Surgery Division, Hospital Padre Hurtado, Chile and Knee Surgery Division, Clínica Alemana, Chile.

Received: July 22, 2022; Published: October 06, 2022

Abstract

Introduction: Supracondylar femoral fractures (SCFF) are associated with high energy mechanisms in young patients and low energy in older adults. Surgical treatment is controversial since current clinical evidence does not recommend one surgical technique over another. The objective was to compare rates of implant failure (IF), local and systemic complications in extra-articular SCFF managed with dynamic condylar screw plate (DCS) versus retrograde nailing (RN).

Materials and Methods: Retrospective cohort. Surgical files were reviewed and included patients with SCFF, treated with DCS or RN between 2011-2015 in a center by the same surgical team. Demographic data, mechanism of injury and radiographic consolidation were assessed. The IF was defined as non-radiological consolidation after 9 months, the need for revision surgery or deep infection. The rate of implant failure and local and systemic complications were compared.

Results: 32 patients met the selection criteria. In the DCS group (14 patients), 64.2% of the fractures were caused by civilian gunshot injuries, the implant failure rate was 28.5% and 7.1% presented thromboembolic events. Of the RN group (18 patients), 72.2% of the fractures were caused by civilian gunshot injuries. The implant failure rate was 0% and 5.5% presented thromboembolic events. The implant failure rate with DCS was significantly higher, without differences in the rate of other complications.

Conclusions: The RN had a significantly lower failure rate than DCS in the treatment of SCFF fractures, with a similar rate of local and systemic complications.

Keywords: Extraarticular; Distal Femur Fracture; Implant Failure; Dynamic Condylar Screw; Retrograde Nailing; Gunshot Injuries

References

1. Martinet O., et al. “The epidemiology of fractures of the distal femur”. Injury 3 (2000): C62-C63.
2. Gwathmey FWJ., et al. “Distal femoral fractures: current concepts”. The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 10 (2010): 597-607.
3. Smith JRA., et al. “Distal femoral fractures: The need to review the standard of care”. Injury 6 (2015): 1084-1088.
4. Butt MS., et al. “Displaced fractures of the distal femur in elderly patients. Operative versus non-operative treatment”. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 1 (1996): 110-114.
5. Streubel PN., et al. “Mortality after distal femur fractures in elderly patients”. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 4 (2011): 1188-1196.
6. Weight M and Collinge C. “Early results of the Less Invasive Stabilization System for mechanically unstable fractures of the distal femur (AO/OTA types A2, A3, C2, and C3)”. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 8 (2004): 503-508.
7. Ehlinger M., et al. “Distal femur fractures. Surgical techniques and a review of the literature”. Orthopaedics and Traumatology: Surgery and Research 3 (2013): 353-360.
8. Thomas TL and Meggitt BF. “A comparative study of methods for treating fractures of the distal half of the femur”. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series B 1 (1981): 3-6.
9. Christodoulou A., et al. “Supracondylar femoral fractures in elderly patients treated with the dynamic condylar screw and the retrograde intramedullary nail: A comparative study of the two methods”. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 2 (2005): 73-79.
10. Griffin XL., et al. “Interventions for treating fractures of the distal femur in adults”. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 6 (2013): CD010606.
11. Gellman RE., et al. “Treatment of supracondylar femoral fractures with a retrograde intramedullary nail”. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 332 (1996): 90-97.
12. Hartin NL., et al. “Retrograde nailing versus fixed-angle blade plating for supracondylar femoral fractures: A randomized controlled trial”. ANZ Journal of Surgery 5 (2006): 290-294.
13. Heiney JP., et al. “Distal femoral fixation: A biomechanical comparison of trigen retrograde intramedullary (I.M.) nail, dynamic condylar screw (DCS), and locking compression plate (LCP) condylar plate”. The Journal of Trauma Injury Infection and Critical Care 2 (2009): 443-449.
14. Dar GN., et al. “Bridge plate osteosynthesis using dynamic condylar screw (DCS) or retrograde intramedullary supracondylar nail (RIMSN) in the treatment of distal femoral fractures: Comparison of two methods in a prospective randomized study”. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi 2 (2009): 148.
15. Meyer RW., et al. “Mechanical Comparison of a Distal Femoral Side Plate and a Retrograde Intramedullary Nail”. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 6 (2000): 398-404.
16. Griffin XL., et al. “Interventions for treating fractures of the distal femur in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 8.3 (2015): CD010606.
17. Poyanli O., et al. “No evidence of infection after retrograde nailing of supracondylar femur fracture in gunshot wounds”. The Journal of Trauma Injury Infection and Critical Care 4 (2010): 970-974.

Citation

Citation: Diego Edwards., et al. “Supracondylar Femoral Fractures: Evaluation of Complications Between two Methods of Fixation (DCS Plate vs Retrograde Endomedullary Nail)". Acta Scientific Orthopaedics 5.11 (2022): 19-24.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2022 Diego Edwards., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.