Retrospective Study
Copyright ©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Orthop. Jul 18, 2014; 5(3): 379-385
Published online Jul 18, 2014. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v5.i3.379
Treatment of distal femur fractures in a regional Australian hospital
Ewan Batchelor, Clare Heal, J Kimberly Haladyn, Herwig Drobetz
Ewan Batchelor, Clare Heal, Herwig Drobetz, Department of General Practice and Rural Medicine, James Cook University School of Medicine and Dentistry, Level 1, Building K, Mackay Base Hospital, Mackay QLD 4740, Australia
Clare Heal, J Kimberly Haladyn, Herwig Drobetz, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mackay Base Hospital, Mackay QLD 4740, Australia
Author contributions: Batchelor E, Drobetz H and Heal C designed the project; Batchelor E was responsible for data collection; Haladyn K conducted statistical analysis; Batchelor E, Drobetz H, Heal C and Haladyn K wrote the paper.
Correspondence to: Clare Heal, MBChB, PhD, FRACGP, Department of General Practice and Rural Medicine, James Cook University School of Medicine and Dentistry, Level 1, Building K, Mackay Base Hospital, 475 Bridge Road, Mackay QLD 4740, Australia. clare.heal@jcu.edu.au
Telephone: +61-7-48857142 Fax: +61-7-48857111
Received: October 24, 2013
Revised: January 7, 2014
Accepted: April 3, 2014
Published online: July 18, 2014
Processing time: 268 Days and 12 Hours
Abstract

AIM: To review our outcomes and compare the results of the Less Invasive Stabilization System (LISS) to other implants for distal femur fracture management at a regional Australian hospital.

METHODS: The LISS is a novel implant for the management of distal femur fractures. It is, however, technically demanding and treatment results have not yet been assessed outside tertiary centres. Twenty-seven patients with 28 distal femur fractures who had been managed surgically at the Mackay Base Hospital from January 2004 to December 2010 were retrospectively enrolled and assessed clinically and radiologically. Outcomes were union, pain, Lysholm score, knee range of motion, and complication rates.

RESULTS: Twenty fractures were managed with the LISS and eight fractures were managed with alternative implants. Analysis of the surgical techniques revealed that 11 fractures managed with the LISS were performed according to the recommended principles (LISS-R) and 9 were not (LISS-N). Union occurred in 67.9% of fractures overall: 9/11 (82%) in the LISS-R group vs 5/9 (56%) in the LISS-N group and 5/8 (62.5%) in the alternative implant group. There was no statistically significant difference between pain, Lysholm score, and complication rates between the groups. However, there was a trend towards the LISS-R group having superior outcomes which were clinically significant. There was a statistically significant greater range of median knee flexion in the LISS-R group with compared to the LISS-N group (P = 0.0143) and compared with the alternative implant group (P = 0.0454).

CONCLUSION: The trends towards the benefits of the LISS procedure when correctly applied would suggest that not only should the LISS procedure be performed for distal femur fractures, but the correct principle of insertion is important in improving the patient’s outcome.

Keywords: Distal femur fracture; Less Invasive Stabilization System; Locking plates; Retrospective; Operative technique

Core tip: We recommend that orthopaedic surgeons have a good understanding of the Less Invasive Stabilization System (LISS) principles, and endeavour to follow these principles when using the LISS to treat distal femur fractures. Improved outcomes with the LISS may be achieved by providing more in-service training and courses on the use of this system for orthopaedic surgeons.