Abstract
Background
Demographics of patients who sustain geriatric distal femoral fractures (DFF) match those of patients with neck-of-femur fractures but have limited evidence with which to support post-operative weightbearing protocols.
Purpose
This systematic review sought to identify any difference in outcomes for elderly patients with DFF who were allowed early versus delayed weightbearing postoperatively.
Methods
Data sources
PubMed, Medline, Embase and The Cochrane Library, reference lists of retrieved articles.
Study selection
English language papers published between January 2010 and February 2023 with AO-OTA type 33A, B and C femoral fractures as well as Lewis and Rorabeck Type I and II periprosthetic DFF surgically treated with either a lateral locking plate or retrograde intramedullary nail and an average patient age of ≥ 60 years.
Data extraction
Studies were assessed for inclusion by two authors and quality was assessed using the MINORS tool.
Data synthesis
Sixteen studies were included, Meta-analysis of non-union, malunion, infection, delayed union and implant complications was performed using Microsoft Excel and the MetaXL extension. The data on return to mobility were presented in narrative form. The analyses demonstrated no difference between the early and delayed weightbearing groups.
Conclusions
There are no significant differences in complication rates between early versus delayed weightbearing after surgery for DFF in an elderly population. The study results are limited by high heterogeneity and low-quality studies. High quality, prospective studies are needed to determine the ideal postoperative weightbearing protocol.
Level of evidence
Level III, Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Level III studies.
International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registration—Prospero CRD42022371460.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The management of geriatric distal femoral fractures (DFF) is a significant challenge in orthopaedic surgery. Controversy exists regarding the optimal timing for surgery, ideal constructs for fixation of these fractures and ideal postoperative weightbearing protocol [1, 2]. This is due to the relatively low incidence of these fractures, which makes it difficult to draw broad conclusions from single-centre studies.
DFF account for 3–6% of all femoral fractures [1, 3] and include periprosthetic fractures around total knee replacements, which have demonstrated an increased incidence with an ageing population [4]. These fractures are particularly challenging to manage in elderly patients due to decreased bone mineral density and represent a significant challenge for orthopaedic surgeons [1]. The demographics of geriatric patients who sustain DFF mirror those who sustain neck-of-femur fractures with multiple comorbidities, poor bone mineral density and often difficulty mobilising prior to the injury [5, 6]. As a result, there is a high morbidity and mortality from these injuries and a significant cost burden on the healthcare system [5].
Despite similarities to neck-of-femur fracture patients in age, mobility, cognitive status, and comorbidities [1, 7], treatment pathways which include multidisciplinary management, early surgical intervention, and early mobilisation have not been applied to DFF [1]. Postoperative weightbearing protocols constitute a spectrum from non-weightbearing (NWB) to fully weightbearing (FWB) or weightbearing as tolerated (WBAT). Some authors advocate for minimal restrictions and early weightbearing while others prefer to delay weightbearing until there is radiographic evidence of fracture healing [3].
Fear about failure of fixation and contradictory reports in the literature form a barrier to adopting a more aggressive approach to weightbearing for these patients. Excessive loading can lead to non-unions, but some loading can also be beneficial, further complicating the decision-making [8,9,10]. However, delaying weightbearing is not without risk. Studies have demonstrated the inability of geriatric patients to maintain weightbearing restrictions, meaning it may be an all-or-nothing proposition [11]. Delaying weightbearing presents a significant barrier in the mobilisation of geriatric patients with a greater burden on hospital staff as well as a higher risk of falls [9]. It can also contribute to thromboembolic events, pneumonia, pressure areas, infection, and exacerbates pre-existing sarcopenia which may preclude a return to pre-morbid mobility [12,13,14,15].
In hip fracture patients the effects of expeditious surgery and early mobilisation has been studied extensively [16]. Unfortunately, the same is not true for geriatric patients with DFF.
This study assesses the available literature relating to outcomes for patients with DFF based on postoperative weightbearing status. Comparing patients treated either with early weightbearing (EWB) or delayed weightbearing (DWB) in terms of morbidity, mortality, and functional outcomes.
Methods
Objectives
We focused on studies that evaluated the outcomes after surgical fixation of geriatric DFF and also documented the weightbearing protocol applied to these patients. This considered both prospective and retrospective reviews including randomised-controlled trials and case–control series. This study was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
Search strategy
After registration with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (Prospero CRD42022371460), we identified relevant published studies for review. Initially the search was performed in September 2022 with a final search performed in August 2023.
We built the search strategy in Ovid Medline and replicated it for use in Ovid EMBASE, Pubmed and the Cochrane Library. We searched for English language papers with the following search terms (Appendix A):
-
1.
Femur OR femoral
-
2.
Fracture
-
3.
Femoral Fracture
-
4.
Distal OR supracondylar
-
5.
Fracture fixation OR Fracture fixation, Intramedullary OR Fracture fixation, Internal
-
6.
Aged OR Aged, 80 and over OR Geriatric* OR elderly
-
7.
Treatment outcome OR Patient outcome assessment OR Outcome assessment, Health care OR Outcome* OR Patient reported outcome measures OR Morbidity OR Hospital Mortality OR Mortality
-
8.
1 AND 2
-
9.
3 AND 4 AND 5 AND 6 AND 7 AND 8
These were used to search electronic databases (Embase, Medline, Pubmed, the Cochrane Library) as well as reference searches of the retrieved articles. The articles identified by the searches had duplicates removed. They were first screened for inclusion based on title and abstract and then by review of the full text article. Reference lists were searched for other potentially eligible articles manually. The search results were assessed independently by two authors (BW and TS) based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 1); disagreements were resolved by a third author (PS). Selection criteria were chosen to reflect current practice in managing these injuries and to exclude studies that included a large proportion of non-geriatric patients.
Quality assessment
Quality of the papers was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-randomised Studies (MINORS) checklist. This tool is validated for use with non-randomised studies and produces a maximum score of sixteen for non-comparative studies and twenty-four for comparative studies. The raw scores were then converted to a percentage of maximum score which were used for the quality effects model employed in our meta-analysis.
Data collection
We were able to extract data pertaining to patient numbers, mean age, sex distribution, type of fixation, weightbearing, complications, length of follow-up, mortality, and various functional scores. In order to divide the patients into an EWB and DWB group we used the method described by Consigliere et al. [2]. The EWB group comprised of patients that were allowed to fully weight bear (FWB), weight bear as tolerated (WBAT) and partial weight bear > 50% (PWB). The DWB group included patients that were non-weightbearing (NWB), touch or toe-touch weightbearing (TWB) postoperatively. Study data (Table 2) and quantitative data (Table 3) were collected for subsequent analysis.
Data synthesis
A quality effects Meta-analysis was possible to calculate pooled prevalence rates for non-union, malunion, infection and mortality as they relate to weightbearing. This was chosen over a random-effects model as it uses the quality of the study in determining the inverse variance. In this way, the weights allocated to individual studies were based on their quality rather than randomly allocated. In addition to this, we grouped studies according to quality as of poor, moderate or good quality. We then ran the analysis, again using a quality effects model, once with only high-quality studies, and once excluding only low-quality studies. The results of these analyses also showed no significant difference between the weightbearing and non-weightbearing groups. Sensitivity analyses were also performed to compare outcomes for LLP, RIMN and NPC by pooling studies that included only a single fixation type. All calculations were performed using Microsoft Excel and the MetaXL extension (version 5.3). Functional data were not appropriate for meta-analysis.
Results
The search strategy identified 340 potential articles and a search of references yielded 27 additional articles. These articles were screened for inclusion based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria by two of the authors. One hundred and seven articles were included as potentially eligible after screening of titles and abstracts and sixteen were subsequently included for analysis (Fig. 1).
A total of 844 patients were included across the sixteen studies, 531 in the DWB group and 313 in the EWB group. In the EWB group, 58.5% were treated with LLP, 33.9% were treated with RIMN and the remaining 7.7% were treated with a nail-plate combination (NPC). In the DWB group 93.8% were treated with LLP and 6.2% were treated with RIMN.
Five of the included studies allowed early postoperative weightbearing [17,18,19,20,21], five studies managed patients with delayed weightbearing [22,23,24,25,26] and six studies had an EWB and a DWB treatment group [2, 27,28,29,30,31].
The quality assessment graded most papers as of moderate or poor quality (Table 4).
Overall, the heterogeneity between studies prevented statistical pooling for functional outcomes but the patient demographics and data available allowed a meta-analysis of non-union, malunion, infection rates, thromboembolic events, and mortality using a quality effects model and the Chi-squared test.
Non-union
All studies included non-union rates in their analysis. There was a total of 42 non-unions in the DWB group with a prevalence of 0.07 (CI 0.03 to 0.11) and 15 in the EWB group with a prevalence of 0.05 (CI 0.03 to 0.08). This difference was not significant (Fig. 2).
Malunion
Malunion was an included outcome in all studies, The prevalence was 0.05 (CI 0.02 to 0.08) in the EWB group and 0.04 (CI 0.01 to 0.09) in the DWB group (Fig. 3). There was no significant difference in prevalence between groups with 16 in the EWB group and 27 in the DWB group.
Infection
Infection was included as an outcome in all studies, 9 patients in the EWB group and 37 patients in the DWB group had infections but this difference was not significant (Fig. 4). The prevalence in the EWB group was 0.03 (CI 0.01 to 0.05) and 0.07 (0.04 to 0.10) in the DWB group.
Mortality
Nine of the studies reported mortality [17,18,19,20,21,22, 28,29,30,31] with a prevalence of 0.10 (CI 0.02 to 0.19) in the EWB group and 0.11 (CI 0.07 to 0.15) in the DWB group. This difference was not statistically significant (Fig. 5).
Thromboembolism
Deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism were included as complications in all studies. There were 11 events in the EWB group with a prevalence of 0.03 (CI 0.00 to 0.06) and 4 events in the DWB group with a prevalence of 0.01 (CI 0.00 to 0.02) (Fig. 6). This result was not significant and 9/11 events in the EWB group arising from a single study. Repeated analysis excluding this study also demonstrated no significant difference between EWB and DWB.
Sensitivity analysis
There were no significant differences between the weightbearing and non-weightbearing groups when grouping by study quality. Furthermore, repeated analysis of outcomes by fixation type (LLP, RIMN, NPC) did not show any difference between implants.
Functional outcomes
Five studies included functional outcome scores and an additional five included mobility after injury. Unfortunately, a lack of consistency in outcome measures used made them unsuitable for meta-analysis.
Two of studies that reported mobility after injury were in the DWB group [22, 23], two were from the EWB group [17, 20], and one had both an EWB and a DWB group. The two studies in the DWB group did not report pre-injury mobility. The study by Keenan et al. [31] included pre-injury mobility as well as post-injury mobility for both EWB and DWB groups but there was no comparison of mobility status for individual patients. In addition, post-operative mobility was unavailable for 32% of patients in the EWB group and for 20% of patients in the DWB group (Table 5).
Two studies included EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D) instrument scores but only one stratified scores by weightbearing status [28].
In the study by Paulsson et al., additional outcome measures were also used and stratified by weightbearing status including short musculoskeletal functional assessment (SMFA), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and timed up-and-go (TUG) tests. The TUG test was five seconds faster in the FWB than in the PWB group, but this was not statistically significant. They did not show any statistically significant differences in SMFA, EQ-5D, or VAS scores between groups.
Discussion
Geriatric lower limb fractures are often life-altering events for the affected population. DFF are associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and loss of independence [5,6,7, 32,33,34]. The demographics and outcomes of DFF mirror those of geriatric proximal femoral fractures [1, 29, 33] where the standard of care has shifted to multidisciplinary care, early operative intervention and immediate weightbearing with early mobilisation [35, 36]. These injuries place a burden on the healthcare system with loss of independence, long hospital stays and management of complications.
There is a well-established link between mobility as measured by the Parker mobility score, 1 year mortality, discharge disposition and dependency in geriatric patients [37,38,39], highlighting the importance of postoperative mobility. Prolonged immobility in geriatric patients exacerbates pre-existing sarcopenia and loss of functional skeletal muscle in these patients can be irreversible [13, 14], supporting the importance of minimising immobility in patients with DFF. In geriatric hip fracture patients, weightbearing is an all-or-nothing proposition [11] and any form of weightbearing restriction increases their immobility, as well as related complications and risk of falls [9, 40]. With their similar demographics, geriatric DFF should be treated with the same weightbearing principles applied to hip fracture patients. This is further supported by our study; for the studies that included post-operative mobility as an outcome, 29% of patients were unable to return to pre-injury mobility and only 41% of patients were able to mobilise without aids after their injury.
Our meta-analysis supports the safety of EWB with no significant difference in complications, but it is limited by the heterogeneity and relatively poor quality of the included studies. Robust evidence, in the form of a large prospective randomised trial, to support either the safety of early weightbearing or the long-term benefit of early weightbearing is lacking. One study [28] randomised geriatric femoral fractures to either FWB or 30% PWB but found no statistically significant difference in functional outcomes or patient length-of-stay (LOS). This may be due to small sample sizes in each group resulting in an underpowered study. Although LOS was equivalent between the groups, all the patients (11/11) in the FWB group were discharged to their homes while 3/18 in the PWB group were discharged to nursing homes.
No high level evidence exists for any aspect of management for DFF, including choice of implant; this limits the ability of surgeons to use literature to guide best practice [41]. Literature around DFF is primarily retrospective, with a focus on case series comparing outcomes with various implants, the biomechanical feasibility of weightbearing or implant characteristics that may predispose to failure after surgical management. Biomechanical studies have shown that both lateral locked plating and retrograde intramedullary nailing have their own strengths and weaknesses as a construct [42] and suggest that lateral locked plating is insufficient for EWB which may be better facilitated with retrograde intramedullary nails [43, 44]. The hesitation from surgeons when it comes to EWB may be based on these biomechanical studies as well as published studies suggesting failure rates between 9–20% after lateral locked plating after DFF [45,46,47,48]. While our subgroup analysis did not show any difference between constructs when compared by weightbearing status, the sample size for both RIMN and NPC was too small to allow us to draw any broad conclusions in this regard. Few studies have suggested criteria to allow EWB and those that have are largely based on expert opinion rather than evidence [3, 49]. Some authors have advocated novel fixation to deal with perceived deficiencies in the commonly used implants [17, 50, 51] but these can be technically challenging as well as costly when it comes to combining implants.
In the more recent literature, there has been increased advocacy for EWB after geriatric DFF. This has been partly encouraged by the improved outcomes for proximal femoral fractures treated according to the NICE guidelines but also as a response to biomechanical studies that suggest that weightbearing may result in decreased non-unions by increasing longitudinal motion at the fracture site and stimulating callus [10, 52]. This is reflected by the relative recency of the studies that included EWB included in our analysis. Novel fixation techniques may also play an eventual role with multiple papers demonstrating excellent outcomes with nail-plate fixation and immediate weight-bearing as tolerated [17, 20, 53].
In addition to the papers included in our systematic review, a retrospective study of 122 patients with 127 fractures was performed by Poole et al., in 2017. In this study, 107 of 127 patients were allowed EWB postoperatively with good results. The study was excluded from analysis as the outcomes were not stratified based on weightbearing status but their overall results demonstrated union rates of 95% in patients with complete sets of radiographs (81/85) and only 3 of the 127 fractures required reoperation for loss of fixation prior to union [54].
Most of the studies included in this review had a high risk of bias due to their retrospective nature and due to the nature of the involved patient populations. The results of the meta-analysis demonstrate non-inferiority of outcomes with EWB compared to DWB with no significant difference in non-union, malunion, infection, thromboembolic events, or mortality.
Limitations of this study are largely due to the largely retrospective nature of the included studies, which reflects the literature related to DFF in general. In addition, the inclusion of studies with an average age of ≥ 60 years means that in at least two of the studies, patients were included in the analysis that are not a part of the population of interest. However, the effect of these few patients on the overall results is likely to be minimal.
Heterogeneity of the studies also presented a major barrier to meta-analysis of functional outcomes, including pain, mobility, requirements for mobility aids and knee range of motion. Obtaining functional outcome scores is understandably difficult or impossible with retrospective studies but even between prospective studies there is a lack of consistency with the scoring systems used.
There are significant barriers to both the adoption of both multidisciplinary management and to early unrestricted weightbearing for patients with distal femoral fragility fractures. Multidisciplinary management typically involves either an orthogeriatric or hospitalist service to aid surgeons in optimising these medically complex patients for theatre. Geriatric proximal femur fractures already represent a significant workload for these physicians and a push to include DFF under their umbrella of care needs to be supported by evidence of improved outcomes. To do so would require increases in funding to these areas which would need to be offset by either an expected reduction in complications, length-of-stay or return to prior levels of independence. Prospective studies to support these changes are currently lacking and should be a focus of future studies to afford these patients the same care afforded to patients with proximal femoral fragility fractures.
Data availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
References
Smith JR, et al. Distal femoral fractures: the need to review the standard of care. Injury. 2015;46(6):1084–8.
Consigliere P, et al. Early versus delayed weight bearing after surgical fixation of distal femur fractures: a non-randomized comparative study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2019;29(8):1789–94.
Gwathmey WF, et al. Distal femoral fractures: current concepts. JAAOS – J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010;18(10):597.
Kolb K, et al. Operative treatment of distal femoral fractures above total knee arthroplasty with the indirect reduction technique: a long-term follow-up study. Injury. 2009;40(4):433–9.
Kammerlander C, et al. Functional outcome and mortality in geriatric distal femoral fractures. Injury. 2012;43:1096–101.
Jordan R, et al. A comparison of mortality following distal femoral fractures and hip fractures in an elderly population. Adv Orthop Surg. 2014;2014:1.
Moloney GB, et al. Geriatric distal femur fracture: are we underestimating the rate of local and systemic complications? Injury. 2016;47(8):1732–6.
El Haj AJ, Thomas GP. Cellular modelling of mechanical interactions with the skeleton. In: Biomechanics and Cells. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994:147–163.
Kubiak EN, et al. Early weight bearing after lower extremity fractures in adults. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013;21(12):727–38.
Bailón-Plaza A, Van Der Meulen MC. Beneficial effects of moderate, early loading and adverse effects of delayed or excessive loading on bone healing. J Biomech. 2003;36(8):1069–77.
Kammerlander C, et al. Inability of older adult patients with hip fracture to maintain postoperative weight-bearing restrictions. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100(11):936–41.
Kortebein P, et al. Functional impact of 10 days of bed rest in healthy older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2008;63(10):1076–81.
Cruz-Jentoft AJ, et al. Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: report of the European working group on sarcopenia in older people. Age Ageing. 2010;39(4):412–23.
Wall BT, Dirks ML, van Loon LJC. Skeletal muscle atrophy during short-term disuse: implications for age-related sarcopenia. Ageing Res Rev. 2013;12(4):898–906.
Appell H-J. Muscular atrophy following immobilisation. Sports Med. 1990;10(1):42–58.
Carlin L, et al. Exploring Canadian surgeons’ decisions about postoperative weight bearing for their hip fracture patients. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24(1):42–7.
Liporace FA, Yoon RS. Nail plate combination technique for native and periprosthetic distal femur fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2019;33(2):e64–8.
Smith WR, Stoneback JW, Morgan SJ, Stahel PF. Is immediate weight bearing safe for periprosthetic distal femur fractures treated by locked plating? A feasibility study in 52 consecutive patients. Patient Saf Surg. 2016;10:1–5.
Giddie J, Sawalha S, Parker M. Retrograde nailing for distal femur fractures in the elderly. SICOT-J. 2015;1:31.
Hussain MS, Dailey SK, Avilucea FR. Stable fixation and immediate weight-bearing after combined retrograde intramedullary nailing and open reduction internal fixation of noncomminuted distal interprosthetic femur fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2018;32(6):e237–40.
Kanakaris NK, et al. Fixation of periprosthetic or osteoporotic distal femoral fractures with locking plates: a pilot randomised controlled trial. Int Orthop. 2019;43(5):1193–204.
Christ AB, et al. Radiographic and clinical outcomes of periprosthetic distal femur fractures treated with open reduction internal fixation. J Orthop Trauma. 2018;32(10):515–20.
Hoffmann M, et al. Outcome of periprosthetic distal femoral fractures following knee arthroplasty. Injury. 2012;43(7):1084–9.
Khursheed O, et al. Results of treatment of distal extra: articular femur fractures with locking plates using minimally invasive approach—experience with 25 consecutive geriatric patients. Musculoskelet Surg. 2015;99(2):139–47.
Ebraheim NA, et al. High complication rate in locking plate fixation of lower periprosthetic distal femur fractures in patients with total knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(5):809–13.
Nam DJ, et al. Fractures of the distal femur in elderly patients: retrospective analysis of a case series treated with single or double plate. J Orthop Surg Res. 2022;17(1):55.
Lieder CM, et al. Is immediate weight-bearing safe after single implant fixation of elderly distal femur fractures? J Orthop Trauma. 2021;35(1):49–55.
Paulsson M, et al. Immediate full weight-bearing versus partial weight-bearing after plate fixation of distal femur fractures in elderly patients. A randomized controlled trial. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehab. 2021;12:215145932110558.
Bruggers J, Jeray K, Tanner S, Israel H, Dawson S, Cannada L. Early weight bearing after distal femur fractures in the elderly: A prospective, cohort pilot study. J Orthopaedic Experience & Innovation. 2020;1(1).
Striano BM, et al. Early weight bearing after distal femur fracture fixation. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehab. 2022;13:215145932110701.
Keenan OJ, et al. Immediate weight-bearing is safe following lateral locked plate fixation of periprosthetic distal femoral fractures. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2021;33(1):1–10.
Guirao AG, et al. Analysis of mortality after surgical treatment of periprosthetic distal femur fractures. Rev Española Cirugía Ortop Traumatol (English Edition). 2020;64(2):92–8.
Streubel PN et al. Mortality after distal femur fractures in elderly patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res®. 2011;469(4):1188–1196.
Campbell ST, et al. Complication rates after lateral plate fixation of periprosthetic distal femur fractures: a multicenter study. Injury. 2020;51(8):1858–62.
Ftouh S, Morga A, Swift C. Management of hip fracture in adults: summary of NICE guidance. Bmj. 2011;342:d3304.
Khan SK, et al. Timing of surgery for hip fractures: a systematic review of 52 published studies involving 291,413 patients. Injury. 2009;40(7):692–7.
Gosch M, et al. Fragility non-hip fracture patients are at risk. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015;135(1):69–77.
Kusen JQ, van der Naald N, van Overeem L, van der Vet PC, Smeeing DP, Eversdijk HA, Verleisdonk EJ, van der Velde D, Schuijt HJ. Is the Parker Mobility Score in the older patient with a traumatic hip fracture associated with discharge disposition after surgery? A retrospective cohort study. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2022;48(3):1919–27.
Parker MJ, Palmer CR. A new mobility score for predicting mortality after hip fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75-B(5):797–798.
Pfeufer D, et al. Weight-bearing restrictions reduce postoperative mobility in elderly hip fracture patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019;139(9):1253–9.
Claireaux HA, Searle HKC, Parsons NR, Griffin XL. Interventions for treating fractures of the distal femur in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2022;10:1465–1858.
Du YR, et al. Comparison of less invasive stabilization system plate and retrograde intramedullary nail in the fixation of femoral supracondylar fractures in the elderly: a biomechanical study. Orthop Surg. 2019;11(2):311–7.
Wähnert D, et al. Distal femur fractures of the elderly—different treatment options in a biomechanical comparison. Injury. 2011;42(7):655–9.
Granata JD, et al. Immediate weight bearing of comminuted supracondylar femur fractures using locked plate fixation. Orthopedics. 2012;35(8):e1210–3.
Tank JC, et al. Early mechanical failures of the synthes variable angle locking distal femur plate. J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30(1):e7–11.
Hoffmann MF, et al. Clinical outcomes of locked plating of distal femoral fractures in a retrospective cohort. J Orthop Surg Res. 2013;8(1):43.
McDonald TC, et al. Treatment of distal femur fractures with the DePuy-Synthes variable angle locking compression plate. J Orthop Trauma. 2019;33(9):432–7.
Rodriguez EK, et al. Mechanical construct characteristics predisposing to non-union after locked lateral plating of distal femur fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30(8):403–8.
Ehlinger M, et al. Minimally-invasive internal fixation of extra-articular distal femur fractures using a locking plate: tricks of the trade. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011;97(2):201–5.
Sanders R, et al. Double-plating of comminuted, unstable fractures of the distal part of the femur. JBJS. 1991;73(3):341–6.
Medda S, Snoap T, Carroll EA. Setting yourself up for success: retrograde intramedullary nailing in periprosthetic fractures about total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Trauma. 2019;33:S29–32.
Elkins J et al. Motion predicts clinical callus formation: construct-specific finite element analysis of supracondylar femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(4):276.
Garala K, et al. Distal femoral fractures: a comparison between single lateral plate fixation and a combined femoral nail and plate fixation. Injury. 2022;53(2):634–9.
Poole W, et al. ‘Modern’distal femoral locking plates allow safe, early weight-bearing with a high rate of union and low rate of failure: five-year experience from a United Kingdom major trauma centre. Bone Joint J. 2017;99(7):951–7.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions. Funding was provided by the Australian Government Research Training Program Fee Offset Scholarship to cover the author’s higher degree tuition fees.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
B.W. Performed the literature search, statistics, wrote the manuscript, and prepared all tables and figures.
B.W. and T.S. Applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria to the search results.
P.S. resolved disagreements with regards to inclusion and exclusion of papers.
J.L., P.S., and T.W provided supervisory assistance with conception and conduction of the study through the Australian National University as well as assisted with editing the manuscript for submission.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
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/.
About this article
Cite this article
Wardle, B., Lynch, J.T., Staniforth, T. et al. Weightbearing versus non-weight bearing in geriatric distal femoral fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-024-02550-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-024-02550-7