Dual Plate Fixation of Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures.

OBJECTIVES: Dual implants for distal femur periprosthetic fractures is a growing area of interest for these challenging fractures with dual plating (DP) emerging as a viable construct for these injuries. In the current study, an experience with DP constructs is described. DESIGN: Retrospective case series with comparison group. SETTING: Level 1 academic trauma center. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: Adults >50 years old sustaining comminuted OTA/AO 33-A2 or 33-A3 DFPF treated with either DP or a single distal femur locking plating (DFLP). Patients with simple 33-A1 fractures were excluded. Prior to 2018, patients underwent DFLP after which the treatment of choice became DP. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: Reoperation rate, alignment, and complications. RESULTS: 34 patients treated with DFLP and 38 with DP met inclusion and follow up criteria. Average follow up was 18.2 ± 13.8 months in the DFLP group and 19.8 ± 16.1 months in the DP group ( P = 0.339). The average patient age in the DFLP group was 74.8 ± 7.3 years compared to 75.9 ± 11.3 years in the DP group. There were no statistical differences in demographics, fracture morphology, loss of reduction, or reoperation for any cause ( P >.05). DP patients were more likely to be weight bearing in the twelve-week postoperative period ( P <0.001) and return to their baseline ambulatory status ( P = 0.004) compared to DFLP patients. CONCLUSIONS: Dual plating of distal femoral periprosthetic fractures maintained coronal alignment with a low reoperation rate even with immediate weight bearing and these patients regained baseline level of ambulation more reliably as compared to patients treated with a single distal femoral locking plate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Modification to Mirels scoring system location component improves fracture prediction for metastatic disease of the proximal femur.

BACKGROUND: Correctly identifying patients at risk of femoral fracture due to metastatic bone disease remains a clinical challenge. Mirels criteria remains the most widely referenced method with the advantage of being easily calculated but it suffers from poor specificity. The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate a modified Mirels scoring system through scoring modification of the original Mirels location component within the proximal femur. METHODS: Computational (finite element) experiments were performed to quantify strength reduction in the proximal femur caused by simulated lytic lesions at defined locations. Virtual spherical defects representing lytic lesions were placed at 32 defined locations based on axial (4 axial positions: neck, intertrochanteric, subtrochanteric or diaphyseal) and circumferential (8 circumferential: 45-degree intervals) positions. Finite element meshes were created, material property assignment was based on CT mineral density, and femoral head/greater trochanter loading consistent with stair ascent was applied. The strength of each femur with a simulated lesion divided by the strength of the intact femur was used to calculate the Location-Based Strength Fraction (LBSF). A modified Mirels location score was next defined for each of the 32 lesion locations with an assignment of 1 (LBSF > 75%), 2 (LBSF: 51-75%), and 3 (LBSF: 0-50%). To test the new scoring system, data from 48 patients with metastatic disease to the femur, previously enrolled in a Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) cross-sectional study was used. The lesion location was identified for each case based on axial and circumferential location from the CT images and assigned an original (2 or 3) and modified (1,2, or 3) Mirels location score. The total score for each was then calculated. Eight patients had a fracture of the femur and 40 did not over a 4-month follow-up period. Logistic regression and decision curve analysis were used to explore relationships between clinical outcome (Fracture/No Fracture) and the two Mirels scoring methods. RESULTS: The location-based strength fraction (LBSF) was lowest for lesions in the subtrochanteric and diaphyseal regions on the lateral side of the femur; lesions in these regions would be at greatest risk of fracture. Neck lesions located at the anterior and antero-medial positions were at the lowest risk of fracture. When grouped, neck lesions had the highest LBSF (83%), followed by intertrochanteric (72%), with subtrochanteric (50%) and diaphyseal lesions (49%) having the lowest LBSF. There was a significant difference (p < 0.0001) in LBSF between each axial location, except subtrochanteric and diaphyseal which were not different from each other (p = 0.96). The area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve using logistic regression was greatest for modified Mirels Score using site specific location of the lesion (Modified Mirels-ss, AUC = 0.950), followed by a modified Mirels Score using axial location of lesion (Modified Mirels-ax, AUC = 0.941). Both were an improvement over the original Mirels score (AUC = 0.853). Decision curve analysis was used to quantify the relative risks of identifying patients that would fracture (TP, true positives) and those erroneously predicted to fracture (FP, false positives) for the original and modified Mirels scoring systems. The net benefit of the scoring system weighed the benefits (TP) and harms (FP) on the same scale. At a threshold probability of fracture of 10%, use of the modified Mirels scoring reduced the number of false positives by 17-20% compared to Mirels scoring. CONCLUSIONS: A modified Mirels scoring system, informed by detailed analysis of the influence of lesion location, improved the ability to predict impending pathological fractures of the proximal femur for patients with metastatic bone disease. Decision curve analysis is a useful tool to weigh costs and benefits concerning fracture risk and could be combined with other patient/clinical factors that contribute to clinical decision making.

Predicting Fracture Risk in Patients with Metastatic Bone Disease of the Femur: A Pictorial Review Using Three Different Techniques.

One of the key roles of an orthopedic surgeon treating metastatic bone disease (MBD) is fracture risk prediction. Current widely used impending fracture risk tools such as Mirels scoring lack specificity. Two newer methods of fracture risk prediction, CT-based structural rigidity analysis (CTRA) and finite element analysis (FEA), have each been shown to be more accurate than Mirels. This case series illustrates comparative Mirels, CTRA, and FEA for 8 femurs in 7 subjects. These cases were selected from a much larger data set to portray examples of true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives as defined by CTRA relative to the fracture outcome. Case illustrations demonstrate comparative Mirels and FEA. This series illustrates the use, efficacy, and limitations of these tools. As all current tools have limitations, further work is needed in refining and developing fracture risk prediction.