The use of knee mega-prosthesis for the management of distal femoral fractures: A systematic review. (August 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Meluzio, MC; Oliva, MS; Minutillo, F; Ziranu, A; Saccomanno, MF; Maccauro, G
• Is Part Of: Injury. Volume 51(2020)Supplement 3
• Page Start: S17
• Page End: S22
• Publication Date: 2020-08
• Subjects: Distal femoral fractures -- Knee replacement -- Megaprothesis -- Non oncological fractures -- Knee fractures; Wounds and injuries -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Accidents -- Periodicals; Wounds and Injuries -- surgery -- Periodicals; Lésions et blessures -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; Electronic journals; 617.1
• DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2019.08.011
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0020-1383

Abstract

Highlights: Treatment of DFFs still represent a challenge, especially in elderly patients. Knee megaprosthesis allows immediate weight bearing and early functional recovery with low complication rate. Knee megaprosthesis represents a safe and reliable option for treating complex DFFs. Abstract: Introduction: Distal femur fractures (DFFs) are unusual and difficult to deal, especially in elderly patients. A consensus about a gold-standard treatment has not been reached yet. Available options include both conservative and surgical management. In elderly patients a prosthetic replacement could be a valid treatment option. Literature is lacking about the use of mega-prosthesis in this type of fractures. The purpose of the present systematic review is to examine which fracture, both acute and chronic, involving distal femur should be treated by using a mega-prosthesis. Materials and Methods: Studies were identified by searching electronic databases. All studies that enrolled people of any age affected by a DFFs treated by using a megaprosthesis were included. Primary outcomes of the present reviews were: ROM, functional assessment and complications. Two review authors independently selected eligible trials. Disagreements at any stage were resolved by consensus or a third party adjudication. Descriptive statics was used to summarize the data. Results: Thirteen article were finally included in the review. One hundred-four patients were treated with knee megaprosthesis. Three categories of patients were identified: 29 patients were affected by supracondylar femur fracture; 51 patients occurred with a periprosthetic fracture; 24 patients suffered a non-union of a previous supracondylar fracture. The follow-up varied between 6 months to 58 months. All studies showed good results in terms of improving quality of life, resuming activities of daily living (ADLs), early mobilization, ROM, shorter hospital stay. Although not frequent, the only reported complications were infection and aseptic loosening. Discussion: The present review showed that the use of knee megaprosthetic implants could represent a valid treatment option aiming to reduce patients' immobilitazion and hospital stay. Good clinical outcomes with low rate of complications were reported by all included studies. Literature is lacking about long-term outcomes and complications. Moreover studies comparing knee prostheses and other types of surgical treatment (intramedullary nails, plate fixation system) are needed. Conclusions: Megaprosthesis represent a viable treatment option in patients affected by DFFs (either acute, periprostethic or non-union) because they allow immediate weight-bearing, shorter hospital stay, a fast recovery of knee function and ADLs.