Open reduction and internal fixation versus distal femoral replacement for periprosthetic distal femur fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

<h4>Objectives</h4>This systematic review and meta-analysis compares open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus distal femoral replacement (DFR) for periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PDFF), focusing on patient-reported outcomes, perioperative measures, functional results, and complications.<h4>Data sources</h4>Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and ScienceDirect were searched from January 2010 through November 2024 using keywords and MeSH strategies.<h4>Study selection</h4>Studies were eligible if they compared outcomes of ORIF and DFR for PDFFs and included ≥10 patients. Exclusion criteria included noncomparative studies, primary arthroplasty indications, and nonperiprosthetic fractures.<h4>Data extraction</h4>Two independent reviewers extracted data on demographics, interventions, patient-reported outcomes, functional outcomes, and complications. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Discrepancies were resolved by a third author.<h4>Data synthesis</h4>Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate pooled incidence rates and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was assessed via I² and Cochran Q. Thirteen retrospective cohort studies (n = 881; ORIF: 554, DFR: 327) were included.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Knee Society Functional Scores were significantly better for ORIF vs DFR in the 2 studies reporting this metric (53 vs 39, <i>P</i> = 0.012; 52 vs 37, <i>P</i> = 0.027). There was no significant difference in Oxford Knee Scores (MD = -0.11, 95% confidence intervals: [-1.74, 1.52], <i>P</i> = 0.85). Mean time to weight bearing was shorter for DFR vs ORIF (2 vs 78 days, respectively; <i>P</i> = 0.04), although risk ratios for returning to preoperative mobility and achieving unassisted ambulation were statistically insignificant. The rate of reoperation was significantly higher for ORIF versus DFR (12% vs 7%, respectively; <i>P</i> = 0.048). ORIF may offer advantages in patient-reported functional outcomes compared with DFR. Although DFR allows for immediate weight bearing, this advantage may not imply superior long-term mobility.<h4>Level of evidence</h4>Level III.