Valles JF, Rodríguez FR, Gómez JM

Language: Spanish
References: 25
Page: 324-330
PDF size: 456.38 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The treatment of distal femur fractures has been a controversial topic and it has recently evolved towards indirect reduction and minimally invasive techniques. Objective: To compare the results of the surgical treatment of distal femur fractures with a plate with screws for condylar compression purposes with the minimally invasive stabilization system. Material and methods: Patients with distal femur fractures treated surgically between January 2007 and December 2009 were assessed retrospectively. The following variables were registered from each patient record: age, sex, type of fracture, mechanism of injury, type of implant used, operative time and postoperative bleeding. The Neer scale was used to compare the anatomical, radiologic and functional results of both techniques. Results: The total number of patients was 52; 32 males and 20 females; mean age was 58 years. A plate with screws was used in 31 patients for condylar compression purposes, and a minimally invasive stabilization system in 21. The cases managed with a minimally invasive stabilization system had a shorter operative time and less intraoperative bleeding. The results of the evaluation using the Neer scale were similar for both modalities. Conclusions: The patients with fracture of the distal third of the femur managed with a minimally invasive stabilization system had better outcomes, which were not significant in the Neer scale, mainly due to less pain intensity, early mobilization and less functional repercussions.

REFERENCES

1. Weight M, 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). J Orthop Trauma 2004; 18: 503-8.

2. Heiney JP, Barnett MD, Vrabec GA, Shoenfeld AJ, Baji A, Njus GO: Distal femoral fixation: A biomechanical comparison of trigen retrograde intramedullary (IM) nail, dynamic condylar screw (DCS), and locking compression plate (LCP) condylar plate. J Trauma 2009; 66: 443-9.

3. Forster MC, Komarsamy B, Davison JN: Distal femoral fractures: A review of fixation methods. Injury 2006; 37: 97-108.

4. Stewart MJ, Sisk TD, Wallace SL: Fractures of the distal end of the femur. JBJS 1966; 48A: 784-807.

5. Wenzl H, Casey PA, Herbert P, Belin J: Die operative Behandling der distalen Femurfraktur. AO Bull 1970.

6. Zehntner MK, Marchesi DG, Burch H, Ganz R: Alignment of supracondylar/intercondylar fractures of the femur after internal fixation by AO/ASIF technique. J Orthop Trauma 1992; 6: 3-26.

7. Shelbourne KD, Brueckmann FR: Rush-pin fixation of the supracondylar and intercondylar fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1982; 64: 161-9.

8. Schatzker J, Lambert DC. Supracondylar fractures of the femur. Clin Orthop 1979; 10: 77-83.

9. Pritchett JW: Supracondylar fractures of the femur. Clin Orthop 1984; 184: 173-7.

10. Schatzker J, Mahomed N, Schiffman K, Kellam J: Dynamic condilar screw: a new device. J Orthop Trauma 1989; 3: 124-32.

11. Green SA: Distal intramedullary fixation of supracondylar fractures of femur. Tech Orthop 1988; 3: 71-6.

12. Moed BR, Watson JT, Cramer KE: Unreamed retrograde intramedullary nailing of fractures of the femur shaft. J Orthop Trauma 1988; 12: 334-42.

13. Moed BR, Watson JT: Retrograde intramedullary nailing without reaming of fractures of the femoral shaft in multiple injured patients. JBJS 1995; 77A: 1520-7.

14. Leuning M, Hertel R, Siebenrock KA, Balmer FT, Mast JW: The evolution of indirect reduction techniques for the treatment of fractures. Clin Orthop 2000; 375: 7-14.

15. Kolb W, Guhtman H, Windisch C, Marx F, Kolb K, Koller H: Fixation of distal femoral fractures with the Less Invasive Stabilization System: A minimally invasive treatment with locked fixed-angle screws. J Trauma 2008; 65: 1425-34.

16. U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). In: http//www.hipaa.org/.

17. Muller ME, Allgower M, Schneider R (eds): Manual of internal fixation: Techniques recommended by the AO/ASIF Group. 3a Ed. Springer , Berlín. 1991: 140-1, 266-77.

18. Neer CS II, Grantham SA, Shelton ML: Supracondylar fracture of the adult femur. A study of one hundred and ten cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1967; 4: 591-613.

19. Gustilo RB, Anderson JT: Prevention of infection in the treatment of one thousand and twenty-five open fractures of long bones: retrospective and prospective analyses. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1976; 58: 453-8.

20. Schatzker J, Tile M: Supracondylar fractures of the femur (33-A, B and C). In: Schatzker J, Tile M (eds): The rationale of operative fracture care. 3a ed. Springer, Berlín. 2005: 409-39.

21. Schandelmauer P, Partenheimer A, Koenemann B: Distal femoral fracture and LISS stabilization. Injury 2001; 32: 55-63.

22. Wong MK, Leung F, Chow SP: Treatment of distal fractures in the elderly using a less invasive plating technique. Int Orthopaedics 2007; 29: 117-20.

23. Schütz M, Müller M, Regazzoni P: Use of the less invasive stabilization system (LISS) in patients with distal femoral (AO 33) fractures: A prospective multicenter study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2005; 125: 102-8.

24. Jeon IH, Oh CW, Kim SJ, Park BC, Kyung HS, Ihm JC: Minimally invasive percutaneous plating of distal femoral fractures using dynamic condylar screw. J Trauma 2004; 57: 1048-52.

25. Kregor PJ, Stannard JA, Zlowodzki M, Cole PA. Treatment of distal femur fractures using the less invasive stabilization system: Surgical experience and early clinical results in 103 fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2004; 18: 509-20.