LAUSR

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Objective: To compare complications and functional outcomes of treatment with primary distal femoral replacement (DFR) versus open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Data Sources: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for English language studies up to May 19, 2020, identifying 913 studies. Study Selection: Studies that assessed complications of periprosthetic distal femur fractures with primary DFR or ORIF were included. Studies with sample size ≤5, mean age <55, nontraumatic indications for DFR, ORIF with nonlocking plates, native distal femoral fractures, or revision surgeries were excluded. Selection adhered to the PRISMA criteria. Data Extraction: Study quality was assessed using previously reported criteria. There were 40 Level IV studies, 17 Level III studies, and 1 Level II study. Data Synthesis: Fifty-eight studies with 1484 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Complications assessed {incidence rate ratio [IRR] [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.78 [0.59–1.03]} and reoperation or revision [IRR (95% CI): 0.71 (0.49–1.04)] were similar between the DFR and ORIF cohorts. The mean knee range of motion was greater in the ORIF cohort (DFR: 90.47 vs. ORIF: 100.36, P < 0.05). The mean Knee Society Score (KSS) (DFR: 79.41 vs. ORIF: 82.07, P = 0.35) and return to preoperative ambulatory status were similar [IRR (95% CI): 0.82 (0.48–1.41)]. Conclusions: In comparing complications among patients treated for periprosthetic distal femur fracture with DFR or ORIF, there was no difference between the groups. There were also no differences in functional outcomes, although knee range of motion was greater in the ORIF group. This systematic review and meta-analysis highlights the need for future prospective trials evaluating the outcomes of these divergent treatment strategies. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.