Abstract
Introduction
Varus collapse followed by osteosynthesis for distal femoral fractures with conventional implants has been well documented but is seldom mentioned in fractures managed with locking plates. The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence of varus collapse after treating complex supra-intercondylar fractures of the distal femur (AO type C3) using a Single Plate (SP) or Double Plate (DP) fixation technique.
Materials and methods
We retrospectively reviewed 357 patients with distal femoral fractures who were treated at our hospital between 2006 and 2017. After excluding cases of infection, malignancy, periprosthetic fracture, revision surgery, pediatric fracture, and extra-articular fracture, 54 patients were included in the study. All demographic data and radiological and clinical outcomes were reviewed and analyzed.
Results
There were 54 patients enrolled into this study with age from 15 to 85 years old (mean 41.6, SD = 19.9), and 32 of them were open fractures (59%). The patients were further divided into either an SP (n = 15) or a DP group (n = 39). Demographics, including age, sex, injury severity score, and open fracture type, were all compatible between the two groups. The overall nonunion rate was 25.9% (n = 14; 6 from the SP and 8 from the DP group; p = 0.175). The varus collapse rate was 9.3% (n = 5; 4 from the SP and 1 from the DP group (p = 0.018).
Conclusions
The varus collapse rate after osteosynthesis with a single lateral locking plate could be as high as 26.7% in AO type C3 fractures of the distal femur, which would be decreased to 2.6% by adding a medial buttress plate. Surgeons should consider DP fixation to avoid varus collapse in severely comminuted complete intra-articular fractures of the distal femur.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Distal femoral fractures account for 3–6% of all femoral fractures, with a bimodal age distribution [1, 2]. In young patients, fractures are usually caused by high-energy trauma, such as motor vehicle accidents or falls. In the elderly, even low-energy trauma can cause distal femoral fractures, such as slipping from a standing level. Fracture patterns are also different for each type of trauma mechanism. In high-energy trauma, supracondylar fractures are more likely to have intercondylar extensions, and the metaphyseal region is usually comminuted. Isolated supracondylar fractures are more common in patients with low-energy trauma. Regardless of the type of injury or severity of fracture, the deforming force of the femur always turns the proximal fragment into a flexion deformity (pulled by the hamstring muscle) and the distal part into an adduction and extension deformity (pulled by the adductor and gastrocnemius muscles)[3]. The injured limb is also shortened.
Surgical treatment is the mainstay therapy of most distal femoral fractures, except in non-displaced or minimally displaced fractures, or in severely ill patients with very high anesthesia and surgery risk. Conservative treatments include protected or non-weight-bearing activity in a hinged knee brace until the callus is present or bridging callus across the fracture side is observed by radiography. Decreased range of motion of the knee joint, wasting of limb muscle, pressure ulcer over the dependent part, venous thromboembolism, and pulmonary distress are possible complications associated with conservative treatments [4,5,6].
There are many surgical methods, and the choice of implants depends on the fracture classification. For extra-articular fractures known as AO type 33-A, either an intramedullary nail or a plate could be the option [7]. The success rate of the procedure was satisfactory. For partial-articular fractures (AO type 33-B), namely, condylar fractures involving the coronal or sagittal plane of the distal femur, fixation with interfragmental screws is usually sufficient [8]. An additional buttress plate provides more stability under certain circumstances. For complete intra-articular fractures (AO type 33-C3), anatomical reduction of the articular surface and restoration of leg length and alignment are major challenges for orthopedic surgeons. Conventional implants, such as condylar plates or dynamic condylar screws, lead to unsatisfactory outcomes due to implant design and poor fixation stability over distal fragments, especially in cases of severe articular comminution and huge metaphyseal bone defects [9, 10]. The locking plate system plays an important role in the treatment of complex supra-intercondylar fractures of the distal femur [8, 11,12,13]. Adequate stability, preservation of the soft tissue envelope, and early mobilization are the keys to success [14, 15].
By treating complex supra-intercondylar fractures of the distal femur with a Condylar Buttress Plate (CBP), the varus collapse rate could be as high as 42% [9]. It indicates that lateral side-based implants are inadequate, especially for complex fracture patterns. The lack of medial buttress in the extremely comminuted metaphysis is believed to be the reason for the failure. The occurrence of varus collapse in patients treated with locking plates remains undetermined and seldom mentioned in the literature. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of varus collapse after treating complex supra-intercondylar fractures of the distal femur with a Single Plate (SP) or Double Plate (DP). We hypothesized that the varus collapse rate could be reduced by the DP fixation technique compared with the SP fixation method.
Materials and methods
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
A total of 357 patients who were diagnosed with distal femoral fractures and underwent osteosynthesis surgery with the distal femoral locking compression plate (less invasive stabilization system for LISS and DF LCP, Synthes, Paoli, PA, U.S.A.) between 2006 and 2017 in our hospital were included in this series. We excluded patients with periprosthetic fractures around the knee joint (n = 92), extra-articular or partial-articular fractures (n = 65), delayed surgery for more than 4 weeks between injury and definite treatment (n = 3), revision surgery for femoral shaft malunion or nonunion (n = 19), tumor invasion-related pathological fractures (n = 5), age under 18 years (n = 1), and infection (n = 1). Patients who were lost within the first postoperative 12 months (n = 59) were also excluded. The remaining 112 complete intra-articular fracture cases were further examined, and only AO type 33-C3 fracture patients were retained. Demographic and clinical data were collected during hospitalization and postoperative 6 weeks, 3, 6, and 12 months. The follow-up was then performed every 6 months until the fracture healed. Early and late postoperative complications such as surgical site infection, wound dehiscence, knee stiffness, implant failure, malunion, and nonunion were also recorded.
The Lateral Distal Femoral Angle (LDFA) was measured as the angle between the axis of the femoral shaft and the joint line of the distal femur [16]. Varus collapse was defined as an increase in LDFA of > 5° measured with plain film compared with the first postoperative plain film. Successful fracture union was defined as three or more continuous bridging bony cortices observed on anteroposterior and lateral radiography, and patients could tolerate full weight-bearing activity without pain [17]. Nonunion was defined as insufficient callus formation or a gap between the fracture site and the discontinuity of the bony cortex on the plain film with cessation of callus progress for at least 3 months or lack of healing by 9 months since injury [18, 19]. Both implant failures and cases that underwent revision surgery for bone grafting were classified as fracture nonunion. Surgical site infection was defined as an inflammatory reaction involving local soft tissue with increased inflammatory markers such as C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Superficial infection was defined as inflammation above the fascia level, in contrast to deep infection, in which the bony structure was also involved. All radiographic, clinical, and demographic data were reviewed by three experienced orthopedic trauma surgeons. Additional conferences were arranged for cases with discrepancies until final agreements were reached between all surgeons.
Surgical techniques
Upon presentation to the emergency room, an advanced trauma life support protocol was carried out for the primary survey and management of trauma patients. Early total care or damage control orthopedics depends on the patient’s general condition and the soft tissue envelope around the injured limb. When a patient has multiple fractures, polytrauma, open fracture, or poor soft tissue condition or is hemodynamically unstable, spanning external knee fixators were used to prevent a second hit injury. For critical patients, such as those in shock or blunt abdominal trauma with internal organ injury who need to undergo laparotomy, orthopedic surgery would be postponed until reaching a relatively stable general condition.
Definite fracture osteosynthesis was performed under general anesthesia. Bumps were placed under the popliteal region to relax tension in the gastrocnemius muscle. The lateral parapatellar approach was used to reduce the articular surface with multiple interfragmentary screws. After anatomically reducing the articular surface, metaphyseal and diaphyseal fractures were reduced and temporarily fixed. There are many tools and methods for limb traction and maintaining reduction, such as Schanz pins, Knowles pins, distractors, temporary spanning external fixators, and manual traction. Surgeons must use the contralateral leg for the leg length and limb axis reference. A distal femoral locking plate (LISS, Synthes) was then applied on the lateral side of the femur via limited open reduction technique, that is, the articular surface was reduced by open approach, and the meta-diaphyseal region and proximal screws insertion were managed by minimally invasive technique. Whether or not to fill the metaphyseal bone defect was dependent on the surgeon’s experience, as well as the bone quality and fracture patterns. An additional buttress plate on the medial side was applied according to the surgeon’s preference (Figs. 1, 2, 3). Closed drainage was left in the knee joint for hematoma evacuation. The wound was then closed layer-by-layer. Neither splinting nor knee bracing was performed after surgery.
Post-operative rehabilitation
All patients received continuous passive machine training for knee joint range of motion (ROM) right on the day after surgery. Early ROM is essential to prevent knee stiffness and joint contracture. Drainage was removed if the daily amount was lower than 150 ml. Once the hemoglobin level was lower than 10 mg/dL or dropped to 3 mg/dL or less with clinical symptoms, a blood transfusion with red blood cells and plasma was arranged. A rehabilitation program was then initiated. The patients were subjected to physical training for ankle pumping exercises, active knee ROM training, and non-weight-bearing activity with a walker or crutches. Partial-weight-bearing activity was allowed once a callus was present on the radiograph. If a bridging cortex was observed on a plain film, the patients could begin full weight-bearing activity.
Statistical analysis
To evaluate differences between SP and DP group in categorical variables like gender, injured limb, degree of open fracture, and the complications, Chi-squared analysis was used. For comparison between groups in continuous data like age, ISS score, days from injury to fixation, the screws and holes of implants, time of follow-up and time to union, Student’s t test was used. Statistical significance was defined as p value ≤ 0.05.
Results
Of the 112 acute distal femoral fracture patients, 54 patients belonged to the AO type C3 fracture, and 32 of them were open fracture (59%). All 54 patients were further divided into either SP or DP groups. There were 15 patients in the SP group (7 males, 8 females) with a mean age of 35.4 years, and 39 patients (29 males, 10 females) in the DP group with a mean age of 44.4 years. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the sex ratio, type of open fracture, and Injury Severity Score (ISS) (Table 1).
Regarding the implant configurations for fracture fixation in all patients, a mean of 3.5 interfragmental screws were used for intercondylar fixation (3 in the SP group and 3.69 in the DP group, p = 0.258). The length of the Synthes LISS locking plates was 8.5 holes (range 7–13) and 9.3 holes (range 5–13) in the SP and DP groups, respectively. The mean length of the medial buttress plate was 8.1 holes in the DP (range 6–10) group. The patients were followed up for a mean of 41.8 months after the operation (47.9 months in the SP group and 39.4 months in the DP group, p = 0.182). The mean time to bony union was 18.7 months (22.5 months in the SP group and 17.2 months in the DP group, p = 0.19) (Table 2).
There were three plate malpositions, one wound dehiscence, one superficial surgical site infection, seven joint stiffnesses, and one avascular necrosis of the distal femur in this series. There were 14 nonunion cases, 6 and 8 in the SP and DP groups, respectively, and the overall nonunion rate was 25.9%. There were three malunion patients who had bony union but with varus deformity (two in the SP group, one in the DP group, p = 0.183). In the 14 nonunion cases, 6 patients had hardware failure (1 in the SP group and 5 in the DP group, p = 0.666), and 2 patients in the SP group had varus collapse of the fracture site (p = 0.073). The overall varus collapse rate, including varus collapse with nonunion and malunion, was 9.3% (five patients, four in SP and one in DP, p = 0.018) (Table 3).
All nonunion cases underwent revision osteosynthesis surgery. Among the 14 cases, 2 underwent revision osteosynthesis with dynamic condylar screw plus medial buttress plate and 4 with Synthes lateral locking plate plus medial buttress plate and autologous bone grafting at a mean of 16 months after the first operation (range 9–23 months). Bony union was achieved at a mean of 6 months after revision surgery (range 3–16 months). For the other eight nonunion cases, autologous bone grafting was performed at a mean of 11 months after the osteosynthesis surgery (range 6–18 months), and bony union was achieved at a mean of 12 months after the operation (range 6–18 months). In the three varus malunion patients, the mean LDFA change compared to the immediately postoperative change was 7° (11°, 5°, and 5° in each patient) (Figs. 2 and 3).
Discussion
Osteosynthesis surgery for distal femoral supra-intercondylar fractures is a major challenge for orthopedic surgeons. In AO type C3 distal femoral fractures, the articular surface is broken, and the metaphysis is always comminuted with inadequate bony contact. Post-operative varus collapse with implant failure or varus malunion is common. However, it has seldom been mentioned in the literature. Davison et al. reported that a nonfixed-angled lateral CBP resulted in ˃5° of varus collapse in 42% of comminuted distal femoral fractures [9]. Weng et al. reported a 16.7% varus malunion rate in 34 AO type C fracture patients treated with CBP but 0% in AO type A fractures [20, 21].
In traditional implants, which are known as nonfixed-angle devices, the screws over the proximal or distal fragments are often loosened if there is varus collapse of the fracture site. In comparison, fixed-angle lateral locking plates provide superior stability, especially in the fixation of the distal fragment, which leads to promising clinical results [8, 22]. However, varus deformity still occurs, and its incidence is reported to be 8% in AO type C3 fractures[23].Clinically, any degree of varus malunion resulted in post-traumatic osteoarthritis of the knee joint during the long-term follow-up [24, 25]. A malalignment of < 5° in the coronal plane resulted in better functional outcomes [26].
The DP fixation technique for distal femoral fracture has been discussed in recent years. In the early 1990s, Sanders et al. treated complex distal femoral fractures with the DP fixation technique (both lateral and medial buttress plates) to reduce varus angulation, which resulted in bony union in all nine patients with good functional outcomes [27]. DP provided better fixation stability over a SP, especially in severely comminuted fractures, or in osteoporotic distal femoral intra-articular fractures [28, 29]. Comparing with lateral plate alone, there were great axial and rotational stiffness with less displacement and implants failure in double plating constructs. Thus, for those severe comminuted metaphyseal fractures with risk of instability, varus collapse, or nonunion, additional fixation of medial plate may be considered as a useful mechanical solution [30,31,32,33]. Applying a medial plate over the distal half of the anteromedial aspect of the femur is quite safe, and the branches of the superficial or deep femoral artery would not be disrupted even while using the minimally invasive technique [34,35,36]. There were no vascular injury complications in either the SP or DP groups in this study.
In our series, there were three varus deformity cases with bony malunion: two in the SP (13.3%) and one in the DP (2.6%) group. Under the natural varus stress of the distal femur, the medial femoral condyle is predisposed to loss of screw purchase and then collapses if only a lateral-based locking plate is used for fracture fixation. Under these circumstances, an additional medial buttress plate plays an important role in maintaining coronal alignment and improving varus deformity in AO type C3 fractures. Among the varus malunion cases, a collapsed medial femoral condyle was observed in all three patients. There was one case of complication combined loosened screws over the femoral shaft, which was quite uncommon and seldom mentioned in the literature. In addition, there were another two cases of varus collapse with nonunion in the SP (13.3%) group but none in the DP group. If we consider both varus collapse with malunion and nonunion cases together, the varus collapse rate was 26.7% in the SP and 2.6% in the DP groups, which was significantly different. This result could be interpreted as the configuration of DP offering better stability, especially over the medial metaphyseal region, as well as reducing varus collapse in AO type C3 distal femoral fractures, compared to a single lateral locking plate design. Medial cortical defects in distal femoral fractures were found to be at risk of nonunion; therefore, biological or mechanical support is believed to play a major role in countering the varus deforming force in distal femoral fractures [37]. In one systemic review article, the nonunion rate was 4.5% and the unplanned re-operation rate was 8.5% if treating native distal femoral fractures with medial and lateral dual plating. Since the existing clinical research and results were limited by retrospective study design and small cohort sample size, the encouraging clinical outcomes show the advantages of double plating in those complex intra-articular of highly comminuted extra-articular fractures[38].
Khalil et al. treated 12 AO type C3 closed distal femoral fractures with a lateral locking plate and an additional medial buttress plate. All of the cases achieved radiological union without bone collapse, whereas the surgical approach was very extensile with a V-shaped skin incision, and tibial tuberosity osteotomy was mandatory [39]. Mohamed et al. reported 16 AO type C3 fracture cases treated with double locking plates and routine bone grafting via the medial parapatellar approach. There was no varus collapse, but only one nonunion, and one case needed redo bone grafting [40]. Steinberg et al. collected data from 32 patients with acute fracture, nonunion, and periprosthetic fracture who underwent double locking plate fixation, and 30 cases achieved union. However, there were only three AO type C3 cases in this series [36]. The intraoperative varus stress test could provide a reference for surgeons to determine whether an additional medial buttress plate is needed. However, it is quite objective with individual bias [41]. For extensive metaphyseal comminuted fractures such as AO type A3, C2, and C3 and some very low periprosthetic fractures, the DP fixation technique demonstrates a higher union rate and lower re-operation rate than the single lateral plating technique [42, 43].
In our study, there were six nonunion cases in the SP group and eight in the DP group; the overall nonunion rate was 25.9%. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in early or late complications, such as wound infection, hardware failure, joint stiffness, or bony avascular necrosis. The longer surgical duration is another issue under debate [43, 44]. We believe that increasing intraoperative blood loss or surgical time while applying double plates is not a major concern because the medial buttress plate is always applied in the last step. In other words, fracture reduction and fixation of the lateral locking plate are key steps in determining surgical duration or blood loss.
The nonunion rate of distal femoral supra-intercondylar fractures treated with lateral LISS is reported to vary widely, ranging from 9 to 22.1%[45, 46], and open fractures, fracture translation, medial cortical defect, smoking are believed to be a significant risk factor for nonunion[37, 43, 47]. For AO type C3 fractures, the nonunion rate could be as high as 23% [48]. All the cases included in our series were AO type C3 fractures, and 59% of them had open fractures. Incidentally, our definition of nonunion was quite strict: patients who underwent revisional surgery for bone grafting only or redo osteosynthesis even without implant failure were all classified as having bony nonunion. Periosteal destruction and gap defects were common in open fractures which resulted into poor vascularity of the fracture site [49]. With the advent of minimally invasive osteosynthesis technique, the vascularity could be preserved and the complications could be decreased. For the gap defects, additional buttress plate plays an important role as a mechanical support for medial site to counter the varus force [37]. Therefore, the nonunion rate in our study was 25.9%, which is comparable to that reported in the literature.
To our knowledge, this article is currently the largest clinical series comparing single- and double-plate fixation strategies in AO type C3 distal femoral fractures with mid-term to long-term follow-up. We highlighted varus collapse with nonunion and malunion issues, even when the fracture was treated with a lateral locking plate, which has seldom been discussed in the literature. However, the 54 distal femoral fracture surgeries were performed by 11 surgeons with different clinical experience. Whether applying single or double plate for fracture fixation or adding the bone graft were depended on each surgeon’s clinical judgement, which was also biased. Whether the DP fixation technique provides similar benefits to AO type C1 or C2 fractures remains undetermined. Besides, the rate of open fracture in our cohort was too high that was never be seen in the literatures. Since this is a single-centered retrospective study, more case numbers and prospective studies with long-term follow-up are mandatory in the future to exclude possible selection bias.
Conclusion
Varus collapse followed by osteosynthesis for AO type C3 distal femoral fractures occurs not only in conventional implants such as CBP or dynamic condylar screws but also in lateral locking plate systems. The comminuted metaphyseal region, which lacks the biological or mechanical support to counter the varus deforming force, is believed to be the reason for this. The DP fixation technique could prevent varus collapse with clinical significance compared with the single lateral locking plate fixation method. Thus, surgeons should consider an additional medial buttress plate to prevent varus collapse of the fracture in severely comminuted complete intra-articular fractures of the distal femur.
Data availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
References
Martinet O, Cordey J, Harder Y et al (2000) The epidemiology of fractures of the distal femur. Injury 31(Suppl 3):C62–C63. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0020-1383(00)80034-0
Court-Brown CM, Caesar B (2006) Epidemiology of adult fractures: a review. Injury 37:691–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2006.04.130
Raducan V (2018) Distal femoral fractures. Essent Orthop Rev Quest Answers Sr Med Students 18:157–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78387-1_70
Moore TJ, Watson T, Green SA et al (1987) Complications of surgically treated supracondylar fractures of the femur. J Trauma 27:402–406
Streubel PN, Ricci WM, Wong A, Gardner MJ (2011) Mortality after distal femur fractures in elderly patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:1188–1196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1530-2
Kammerlander C, Riedmuller P, Gosch M et al (2012) Functional outcome and mortality in geriatric distal femoral fractures. Injury 43:1096–1101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2012.02.014
Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J et al (2007) Fracture and dislocation classification compendium - 2007: orthopaedic trauma association classification, database and outcomes committee. J Orthop Trauma 21:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005131-200711101-00001
Schutz M, Muller M, Krettek C, et al (2001) Minimally invasive fracture stabilization of distal femoral fractures with the LISS: a prospective multicenter study. Results of a clinical study with special emphasis on difficult cases. Injury 32(Suppl 3):SC48–SC54
Davison BL (2003) Varus collapse of comminuted distal femur fractures after open reduction and internal fixation with a lateral condylar buttress plate. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 32:27–30
Petsatodis G, Chatzisymeon A, Antonarakos P et al (2010) Condylar buttress plate versus fixed angle condylar blade plate versus dynamic condylar screw for supracondylar intra-articular distal femoral fractures. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 18:35–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/230949901001800108
Beltran MJ, Gary JL, Collinge CA (2015) Management of distal femur fractures with modern plates and nails: State of the art. J Orthop Trauma 29:165–172. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000000302
Smith TO, Hedges C, MacNair R et al (2009) The clinical and radiological outcomes of the LISS plate for distal femoral fractures: a systematic review. Injury 40:1049–1063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2009.01.005
Kayali C, Agus H, Turgut A (2007) Successful results of minimally invasive surgery for comminuted supracondylar femoral fractures with LISS: comparative study of multiply injured and isolated femoral fractures. J Orthop Sci 12:458–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-007-1156-8
Stover M (2001) Distal femoral fractures: current treatment, results and problems. Injury 32(Suppl 3):SC3–SC13
Huang H-T, Huang P-J, Su J-Y, Lin S-Y (2003) Indirect reduction and bridge plating of supracondylar fractures of the femur. Injury 34:135–140
Keats TE, Teeslink R, Diamond AE, Williams JH (1966) Normal axial relationships of the major joints. Radiology 87:904–907. https://doi.org/10.1148/87.5.904
Morshed S, Corrales L, Genant H, Miclau T (2008) Outcome assessment in clinical trials of fracture-healing. J Bone Jt Surg - Ser A 90:62–67. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.G.01556
Bell A, Templeman D, Weinlein JC (2016) Nonunion of the Femur and Tibia: An Update. Orthop Clin North Am 47:365–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2015.09.010
Bhandari M, Fong K, Sprague S et al (2012) Variability in the definition and perceived causes of delayed unions and nonunions: A cross-sectional, multinational survey of orthopaedic surgeons. J Bone Jt Surg 94:e109. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.K.01344
Weng CJ, Wu CC, Feng KF et al (2012) High incidence of varus deformity in association with condylar buttress plates used to treat supraintercondylar fracture of the femur. Formos J Musculoskelet Disord 3:50–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fjmd.2012.03.003
Weng CJ, Wu CC, Feng KF et al (2016) Comparison of supraintercondylar and supracondylar femur fractures treated with condylar buttress plates. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 17:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-1278-2
Rodríguez-Roiz JM, Seijas R, Camacho-Carrasco P et al (2018) LISS plate for treatment of distal femur fracture. Clinical and functional outcomes. Acta Orthop Belg 84:316–320
Syed AA, Agarwal M, Giannoudis PV et al (2004) Distal femoral fractures: Long-term outcome following stabilisation with the LISS. Injury 35:599–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-1383(03)00247-X
Pettine KA (1990) Supracondylar fractures of the femur: long-term follow-up of closed versus nonrigid internal fixation. Contemp Orthop 21:253–261
Zehntner MK, Marchesi DG, Burch H, Ganz R (1992) Alignment of supracondylar/intercondylar fractures of the femur after internal fixation by AO/ASIF technique. J Orthop Trauma 6:318–326
Kuwahara Y, Takegami Y, Tokutake K et al (2022) How does intraoperative fracture malalignment affect postoperative function and bone healing following distal femoral fracture? Bone Jt Open 3:165–172. https://doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.32.bjo-2021-0191.r1
Sanders R, Swiontkowski M, Rosen H, Helfet D (1991) Double-plating of the of comminuted, distal unstable of the fractures part femur *. J Bone Jt Surg 73:341–346
Jazrawi LM, Kummer FJ, Simon JA et al (2000) New technique for treatment of unstable distal femur fractures by locked double-plating: Case report and biomechanical evaluation. J Trauma Inj Infect Crit Care 48:87–92. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005373-200001000-00015
Stoffel K, Lorenz K-U, Kuster MS (2007) Biomechanical considerations in plate osteosynthesis: the effect of plate-to-bone compression with and without angular screw stability. J Orthop Trauma 21:362–368. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0b013e31806dd921
DeKeyser GJ, Hakim AJ, O’Neill DC et al (2022) Biomechanical and anatomical considerations for dual plating of distal femur fractures: a systematic literature review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 142:2597–2609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-03988-9
Park KH, Oh CW, Park IH et al (2019) Additional fixation of medial plate over the unstable lateral locked plating of distal femur fractures: a biomechanical study. Injury 50:1593–1598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2019.06.032
Fontenot PB, Diaz M, Stoops K et al (2019) Supplementation of lateral locked plating for distal femur fractures: a biomechanical study. J Orthop Trauma 33:642–648. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000001591
Zhang W, Li J, Zhang H et al (2018) Biomechanical assessment of single LISS versus double-plate osteosynthesis in the AO type 33–C2 fractures: a finite element analysis. Injury 49:2142–2146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2018.10.011
Kim JJ, Oh HK, Bae JY, Kim JW (2014) Radiological assessment of the safe zone for medial minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis in the distal femur with computed tomography angiography. Injury 45:1964–1969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2014.09.023
Jiamton C, Apivatthakakul T (2015) The safety and feasibility of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) on the medial side of the femur: a cadaveric injection study. Injury 46:2170–2176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2015.08.032
Steinberg EL, Elis J, Steinberg Y et al (2017) A double-plating approach to distal femur fracture: a clinical study. Injury 48:2260–2265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2017.07.025
Peschiera V, Staletti L, Cavanna M et al (2018) Predicting the failure in distal femur fractures. Injury 49:S2–S7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2018.10.001
O’Neill DC, Hakim AJ, DeKeyser GJ et al (2023) Medial and lateral dual plating of native distal femur fractures: a systematic literature review. OTA Int Open Access J Orthop Trauma 6:e227. https://doi.org/10.1097/oi9.0000000000000227
Khalil AES, Ayoub MA (2012) Highly unstable complex C3-type distal femur fracture: Can double plating via a modified Olerud extensile approach be a standby solution? J Orthop Traumatol 13:179–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10195-012-0204-0
Imam MA, Torieh A, Matthana A (2018) Double plating of intra-articular multifragmentary C3-type distal femoral fractures through the anterior approach. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 28:121–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-017-2014-9
Bai Z, Gao S, Hu Z, Liang A (2018) Comparison of clinical efficacy of lateral and lateral and medial double-plating fixation of distal femoral fractures. Sci Rep 8:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-23268-8
Bologna MG, Claudio MG, Shields KJ et al (2020) Dual plate fixation results in improved union rates in comminuted distal femur fractures compared to single plate fixation. J Orthop 18:76–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2019.09.022
Liu JF, Zhou ZF, Hou XD et al (2021) Hybrid locked medial plating in dual plate fixation optimizes the healing of comminuted distal femur fractures: A retrospective cohort study. Injury 52:1614–1620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2021.01.003
Tripathy SK, Mishra NP, Varghese P et al (2022) Dual-plating in distal femur fracture: a systematic review and limited meta-analysis. Indian J Orthop 56:183–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-021-00489-0
Schütz M, Müller M, Krettek C et al (2001) Minimally invasive fracture stabilization of distal femoral fractures with the LISS: A prospective multicenter study. Results of a clinical study with special emphasis on difficult cases. Injury 32:48–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0020-1383(01)00183-8
Obremskey WT (2016) LCP versus LISS in the treatment of open and closed distal femur fractures: Does it make a difference? J Orthop Trauma 30:e212–e216. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000000507
Ebraheim NA, Martin A, Sochacki KR, Liu J (2013) Nonunion of distal femoral fractures: a systematic review. Orthop Surg 5:46–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12017
Johnson EE (2006) Failure of LCP condylar plate fixation in the distal part of the femur [14]. J Bone Jt Surg - Ser A 88:2539–2541. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200611000-00041
Lynch JR, Taitsman LA, Barei DP, Nork SE (2008) Femoral nonunion: risk factors and treatment options. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16:88–97. https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-200802000-00006
Acknowledgements
We thank to all of the surgeons in the department of orthopaedic traumatology who ever provided us valuable suggestion and gave us assistance to complete this study.
Funding
The authors declared that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, and data collection were performed by Chang-Heng Liu, Ping-Jui Tsai, and I-Jung Chen. Data analysis were performed by Chang-Heng Liu and Yi-Hsun Yu. Review and editing of this article were performed by Ying-Chao Chou and Yung-Heng Hsu. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Chang-Heng Liu, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Ethics approval
Approval was granted by Chang Gung Medical Foundation Institutional Review Board (IRB No. 202201117B0)
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.
Consent to publish
The participant has consented to the submission of the case report to the journal.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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
Liu, CH., Tsai, PJ., Chen, IJ. et al. The double-plate fixation technique prevents varus collapse in AO type C3 supra-intercondylar fracture of the distal femur. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 143, 6209–6217 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-023-04953-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-023-04953-4