Outcomes of distal femur fractures treated with the Synthes 4.5 mm VA-LCP Curved Condylar Plate
- 290 Downloads
Given the recent controversy in the literature and the alarming reports of early mechanical failure associated with the use of the Synthes 4.5 mm VA-LCP Curved Condylar Plate in acute distal femur fractures, the goal of our study was to examine the outcomes and mechanical failure rates of this implant in a larger patient population.
Patients 18 years of age and older who underwent plate fixation of their acute distal femoral fracture using the Synthes 4.5 mm VA-LCP Curved Condylar Plate were included in this retrospective study. The study data was collected through a retrospective chart review and review of the existing radiographic studies. Primary outcome measure was mechanical hardware failure while secondary outcome measures included nonunion, malunion, and medical and surgical complications.
A total of 74 patients (77 fractures) were included in this study. The fractures were classified according to the OTA/AO classification as 33-A2 (n = 6), 33-A3 (n = 19), 33-C1 (n = 5), 33-C2 (n = 25), and 33-C3 (n = 22). Thirty-two out of 77 fractures presented as open fractures (41.6%). A mechanical failure was observed in 7 patients (9.1%). Twenty additional patients needed a re-operation of the surgical site including two nonunion repairs, one malunion repair, 15 staged treatments of traumatic segmental bone defects, and two soft tissue debridements.
In our experience, the Synthes 4.5 mm VA-LCP Curved Condylar Plate is a safe and effective implant with a relatively low mechanical failure rate.
KeywordsDistal femur Fracture Locked plate Complication
- 1.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 32:27–30Google Scholar
- 5.Kregor PJ, Stannard JA, Zlowodzki M, Cole PA (2004) Treatment of distal femur fractures using the less invasive stabilization system: surgical experience and early clinical results in 103 fractures. J Orthop Trauma (8):509–520Google Scholar
- 7.Özcan Ç, Sökücü S, Beng K, Çetinkaya E, Demir B, Kabukçuoğlu YS (2016) Prospective comparative study of two methods for fixation after distal femur corrective osteotomy for valgus deformity; retrograde intramedullary nailing versus less invasive stabilization system plating. Int Orthop 40:2121–2126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Schütz M, Müller M, Krettek C, Höntzsch D, Regazzoni P, Ganz R, Haas N (2001) Minimally invasive fracture stabilization of distal femoral fractures with the LISS: a prospective multicentre study. Results of a clinical study with special emphasis on difficult cases Injury 32(Suppl 3):S48–S54Google Scholar
- 11.Kim SM, Yeom JW, Song HK, Hwang KT, Hwang JH, Yoo JH (2018) Lateral locked plating for distal femur fractures by low-energy trauma: what makes a difference in healing? Int Orthop doi. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3881-3
- 12.Koso RE, Terhoeve C, Steen RG, Zura R (2018) Healing, nonunion, and re-operation after internal fixation of diaphyseal and distal femoral fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Orthop doi. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3864-4
- 16.Rodriguez EK, Boulton C, Weaver MJ, Herder LM, Morgan JH, Chacko AT, Appleton PT, Zurakowski D, Vrahas MS (2014) Predictive factors of distal femoral fracture nonunion after lateral locked plating: a retrospective multicentre case-control study of 283 fractures. Injury 45:554–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Hanschen M, Aschenbrenner IM, Fehske K, Kirchhoff S, Keil L, Holzapfel BM, Winkler S, Fuechtmeier B, Neugebauer R, Luehrs S, Liener U, Biberthaler P (2014) Mono- versus polyaxial locking plates in distal femur fractures: a prospective randomized multicentre clinical trial. Int Orthop 38:857–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J, Broderick JS, Creevey W, DeCoster TA, Prokuski L, Sirkin MS, Ziran B, Henley B, Audigé L (2007) Fracture and dislocation classification compendium - 2007: Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification, database and outcomes committee. J Orthop Trauma 21(10 Suppl):S1–S133Google Scholar