Comparative Outcomes of Distal Femoral Replacement Versus Operative Fixation for Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PDFFs) are challenging injuries that commonly affect elderly patients following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The commonly used surgical interventions are distal femoral replacement (DFR) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), although the best approach remains debatable. This study aimed to evaluate the different ORIF subtypes and compare DFR versus ORIF for the management of PDFFs. This study was conducted in strict accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). A comprehensive search was conducted across various databases up to October 2025. This study included only cohort studies comparing various surgical management approaches. Primary outcomes included functional scores (Knee Society Score (KSS)/Knee Society Function Score (KSFS)/Oxford Knee Score (OKS)), reoperation, and range of motion (ROM). Risk of bias and methodological quality were assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) tool. Fifteen retrospective comparative studies involving 1,417 patients were included. Pooled analysis demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in reoperation rates favoring DFR (OR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.42-0.97). One-year mortality showed a non-significant trend favoring DFR (OR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.45-1.09). Infection rates were slightly higher in the DFR group without statistical significance (OR = 1.39; 95% CI: 0.61-3.18). No significant differences were observed in perioperative and functional outcomes between the two interventions. DFR allowed earlier full weight-bearing and mobilization, whereas ORIF required protected weight-bearing protocols. Compared with ORIF in PDFFs, DFR was associated with a reduced risk of reoperation and earlier postoperative mobilization. Mortality and functional outcomes remained comparable between the two interventions. Treatment selection should be individualized, with ORIF appropriate for reconstructible fractures with stable implants and DFR reserved for patients in whom fixation is unlikely to succeed or protected weight-bearing is unrealistic; all findings should be interpreted cautiously given the retrospective evidence base.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Cureus
Published
2026-06-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.111801
Primary Topic
Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparative Outcomes of Distal Femoral Replacement Versus Operative Fixation for Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Wazzan AlJuhani, Noor Ayman Adel Abualsaud, Saied Yaser Sharif, Rashed Mishary Alshammari et al.
Cureus
Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
article

Comparative Outcomes of Distal Femoral Replacement Versus Operative Fixation for Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Wazzan AlJuhani, Noor Ayman Adel Abualsaud, Saied Yaser Sharif, Rashed Mishary Alshammari, Batool A Al Hussain, Yaqeen M Almahozi, Salma A AlDaher, Mohammad K Albouri, Omar Y Alhati, Abdullah Y Alheraiz, Osama A Moshantaf, Lina F Almutairi, Zainab A Alsaffar, Maha A AlDaher
article en

Abstract

Periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PDFFs) are challenging injuries that commonly affect elderly patients following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The commonly used surgical interventions are distal femoral replacement (DFR) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), although the best approach remains debatable. This study aimed to evaluate the different ORIF subtypes and compare DFR versus ORIF for the management of PDFFs. This study was conducted in strict accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). A comprehensive search was conducted across various databases up to October 2025. This study included only cohort studies comparing various surgical management approaches. Primary outcomes included functional scores (Knee Society Score (KSS)/Knee Society Function Score (KSFS)/Oxford Knee Score (OKS)), reoperation, and range of motion (ROM). Risk of bias and methodological quality were assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) tool. Fifteen retrospective comparative studies involving 1,417 patients were included. Pooled analysis demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in reoperation rates favoring DFR (OR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.42-0.97). One-year mortality showed a non-significant trend favoring DFR (OR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.45-1.09). Infection rates were slightly higher in the DFR group without statistical significance (OR = 1.39; 95% CI: 0.61-3.18). No significant differences were observed in perioperative and functional outcomes between the two interventions. DFR allowed earlier full weight-bearing and mobilization, whereas ORIF required protected weight-bearing protocols. Compared with ORIF in PDFFs, DFR was associated with a reduced risk of reoperation and earlier postoperative mobilization. Mortality and functional outcomes remained comparable between the two interventions. Treatment selection should be individualized, with ORIF appropriate for reconstructible fractures with stable implants and DFR reserved for patients in whom fixation is unlikely to succeed or protected weight-bearing is unrealistic; all findings should be interpreted cautiously given the retrospective evidence base.

Cureus
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.