• Silke Aldrian, Rupert Schuster, Nicole Haas, Jochen Erhart, Markus Strickner, Beate Blutsch, Simon Wernhart, Johannes Leitgeb, and Patrick Platzer.
• Department of Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
• Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013 Jul 1;133(7):921-7.

IntroductionLiterature does not provide any reliable comparison between angular stable plate fixation and rigid nail fixation for stabilization of supracondylar periprosthetic femoral fractures. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare these two implants in clinical practice relating to fracture healing, functional results and treatment-related complications.Patients And MethodsIn this retrospective study (level IV), clinical and radiographic records of 86 patients (62 female and 24 male, average age: 75.6) with supracondylar periprosthetic femoral fractures between 1996 and 2010 were analyzed. 48 patients underwent lateral plate fixation by an angular stable plate system (LISS), whereas 38 patients were stabilized by a rigid interlocking nail device.ResultsSixty-four (76 %) patients returned to their pre-injury activity level and were satisfied with their clinical outcome. We had an overall Oxford outcome score of 2.21, with patients following angular stable plate fixation of 2.22, and patients after rigid nail fixation of 2.20. Successful fracture healing within 6 months was achieved in 74 (88 %) patients. Comparing between plate fixation and nail fixation, statistical analysis did not reveal any significant differences. Overall, we had a relatively high rate of fracture healing and a satisfactory functional outcome with both implants. Both methods of fixation showed similar results relating to the functional outcome and individual satisfaction of the patients. However, with regards to fracture healing and treatment-related complications, intramedullary nail fixation showed slight advantages.

24 keywords...

hide…