Next Article in Journal
The Role of IVC Filters in the Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism
Previous Article in Journal
Possible Role of Correlation Coefficients and Network Analysis of Multiple Intracellular Proteins in Blood Cells of Patients with Bipolar Disorder in Studying the Mechanism of Lithium Responsiveness: A Proof-Concept Study
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Severity of Complications after Locking Plate Osteosynthesis in Distal Femur Fractures

Roshan Gurung
Alexander Terrill
Gentry White
Markus Windolf
Ladina Hofmann-Fliri
Constantin Dlaska
Michael Schuetz
1,2,8 and
Devakara R. Epari
School of Mechanical, Medical and Process Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane City, QLD 4000, Australia
Centre for Biomedical Technologies, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, QLD 4059, Australia
School of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, QLD 4059, Australia
School of Mathematical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane City, QLD 4000, Australia
AO Research Institute Davos, 7270 Davos, Switzerland
AO Innovation Translation Center, AO Foundation, 7270 Davos, Switzerland
The Orthopaedic Research Institute of Queensland, Townsville, QLD 4812, Australia
Jamieson Trauma Institute, Metro North Hospital and Health Services, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(5), 1492;
Submission received: 9 February 2024 / Revised: 29 February 2024 / Accepted: 1 March 2024 / Published: 5 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Orthopedics)


Background: Locked plating for distal femur fractures is widely recommended and used. We systematically reviewed clinical studies assessing the benefits and harms of fracture fixation with locked plates in AO/OTA Type 32 and 33 femur fractures. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cinahl, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database was performed. The studies included randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, observational studies, and case series involving patients with distal femur fractures. Studies of other fracture patterns, studies conducted on children, pathological fractures, cadaveric studies, animal models, and those with non-clinical study designs were excluded. Results: 53 studies with 1788 patients were found to satisfy the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The most common harms were nonunion (14.8%), malunion (13%), fixation failure (5.3%), infection (3.7%), and symptomatic implant (3.1%). Time to full weight-bearing ranged from 5 to 24 weeks, averaging 12.3 weeks. The average duration of follow-up was 18.18 months, ranging from 0.5 to 108 months. Surgical time ranged between 40 and 540 min, with an average of 141 min. The length of stay in days was 12.7, ranging from 1 to 61. The average plate length was ten holes, ranging from 5 to 20 holes. Conclusion: This review aimed to systematically synthesize the available evidence on the risk associated with locked plating osteosynthesis in distal femur fractures. Nonunion is the most common harm and is the primary cause of reoperation. The overall combined risk of a major and critical complication (i.e., requiring reoperation) is approximately 20%.

1. Introduction

The development of modern implants and improvements in techniques such as minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) have made surgical fixation state of the art in most distal femoral fractures. Compared to non-surgical treatment, patients treated surgically spent less time in the hospital, returned to activity sooner, had better functional results, and had a lower incidence of nonunion, malunion, and infection [1,2,3]. Modern implants, such as locking plates, offer several new options for managing complex and periprosthetic fractures compared to traditional plating. Unlike traditional plating techniques, where plate compression to bone achieves absolute rigidity, locking plate fixation maintains a certain elasticity to stimulate bone healing [4]. Locking plates do not directly contact the bone, thus preserving the periosteal blood supply [5,6]. Furthermore, when used in osteoporotic bones, locking plate constructs have shown increased fatigue strength, increased ultimate failure load, and improved fixation stability compared to nonlocked implants [7,8,9].
Despite the benefits of locked plating for distal femur fractures, the reported incidence of healing complications like nonunion varies significantly, ranging from 0% [10] to as high as 20% [11,12,13]. The mechanical environment of the fracture (e.g., interfragmentary movement [IFM]) can vary significantly depending on the fixation configuration [14,15], and studies have shown that locked plating constructs are at high risk of becoming too rigid/stiff, thus impairing fracture healing [13,16]. As a result, fixation stiffness can vary (too rigid or highly flexible), affecting callus formation and leading to healing complications [17,18,19].
The primary goal of fixation in distal femur fracture treatment is to minimize disability, restore and maintain limb alignment, preserve blood supply, and encourage early active mobilization. To date, the use of locked plating implants has addressed these goals. However, gaps still exist regarding post-operative early full weight-bearing. While the design of currently used locking plates encourages early and active mobilization through partial weight-bearing, they are contraindicated for early full weight-bearing [20,21,22]. As a result, surgeons remain cautious about early full weight-bearing due to the fear of an early failure of the fixation as the load transmitted to the bone–implant interface is not shared with the bone and can be relatively high [23,24]. Hence, partial toe-touch or touch weight-bearing is often prescribed to patients [25,26]. However, patients do not or cannot adhere to these protocols, compounded by substantial variation in weight-bearing terminology among healthcare professionals [27,28]. Hence, in clinical practice, progressive full weight-bearing is only recommended once the callus is visible on radiographs [10,29].
Recent systematic reviews have focused on comparing complication rates between operative treatments (plating vs. nailing) for distal femur fractures [19,30], including periprosthetic fractures following total knee arthroplasties [31,32]. Studies focusing on locked plating have reviewed contributing factors for nonunion, including patient and intra-operative factors [16,33] and rates of healing difficulties/complications [34]. While these systematic reviews successfully report the frequency of the most commonly occurring clinical complications, such as nonunion and implant failure, a gap exists in reporting the severity of these complications (i.e., the harm). For example, the severity of a nonunion treated conservatively (non-surgical) compared to surgical treatment can change considerably. Combining both parameters (occurrence and severity) allows for a quantitative evaluation of risks associated with locked plating for distal femur fractures. A quantitative risk analysis allows informed decision making on a specific procedure’s benefits, harms, or risks. Hence, to estimate the risk/harms of locking plate osteosynthesis in distal femur fractures, we systematically reviewed all levels of clinical studies, considering additional factors such as time to full weight-bearing and the severity of reported complications.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Search Strategy and Study Selection

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cinahl, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database was performed, including articles from 1990 to 2022 using the search terms defined in Table 1. We included randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, observational studies, and case series involving patients with distal femur fracture/s (AO/OTA Type 32 and 33) requiring osteosynthesis with any type of locking plate. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are shown in Supplementary Data_1 in Tables S1 and S2. Two reviewers independently performed the overall search procedures, including the literature search and data extraction.

2.2. Data Extraction

Data were extracted from the articles that fully met the inclusion criteria. The titles and abstracts were scanned for potentially relevant studies, and algorithmic formulas were used to identify duplicates and those outside the inclusion criteria. The full-text versions of the potentially eligible studies were evaluated, and reviewers independently decided on the study’s inclusion. The reference lists of included studies and all literature reviews found in the search results were manually screened for additional articles that met the inclusion criteria. If the methodological procedure described in the full text was considered adequate, it was included. Data from each clinical study were tabulated on a standardized Excel document. Extracted data included author names, publication year, sample size, fracture pattern, patient age and gender, follow-up period, surgical details, and surgical outcome. For commonly reported outcomes, including nonunion, symptomatic implant, malunion, infection, and fixation failure, the severity was considered by categories defined in Table 2. Disagreements on the inclusion of studies were discussed and resolved with a consensus.

2.3. Risk Estimation

Risk is the combination of the probability of the occurrence of harm (P1) and the severity (P2) of the ensuing harm [35,36]. For this review, we defined risks as harms/complications arising from locked plated distal femur fracture treatment, and some commonly occurring harms include nonunion, implant failure, malunion, infection, and symptomatic implant. The P1 values were tabulated as a ratio using the total number of reported complications against those populations in which complications were reported. P2 is defined as the probability of the different harm severities. The severities (P2) of harm were classified as negligible, minor, major, critical, or catastrophic, and only studies that report how all harms were divided into the five different severity classes were included in estimating the P2 values. Recognizing that harms can have short-term (e.g., need for surgery or hospitalization) or long-term (e.g., long-term functional impairment) effects, each of these were defined with respect to the health effects, the required management, and the functional outcome. The severity of harm is classified as the severity of its most severe effect (e.g., if harm is asymptomatic, requires surgery, and has no functional deficits, it is classified as major because it requires an invasive intervention). The overall risk was computed using the risk formula described in Appendix A.

3. Results

The search strategy and study selection results are demonstrated in the PRISMA flow diagram in Table 1 and Figure 1. The initial search yielded 3524 articles, with 1975 remaining after removing duplicates. Following algorithmic exclusions and abstract screening, 370 studies remained for full-text review. A further 317 studies were removed based on study design, the intervention not being locked plating, or the inability to separate between study group data, leaving 53 eligible studies for inclusion. The results of the 53 studies are summarized in Tables S1 and S2 of Supplementary Data_2.

3.1. Findings of Studies

3.1.1. Cohort Characteristics

The 53 papers included 2468 patients with a mean age of 57.4 years, ranging from 16 [37] to 101 years [38]. Of 2468 patients, 680 were excluded due to drop-out or death or excluded by the authors of the paper, leaving 1788 patients for final follow-up. OA/ATO fracture classification, if reported, was as follows: 32A (Npatients = 32), 32B (Npatients = 25), and 32C (Npatients = 9), 33A (Npatients = 476), 33B (Npatients = 30), 33C (Npatients = 589). The literature reported 312 patients (29 papers) with open fractures and 310 patients (28 papers) with periprosthetic fractures.

3.1.2. Surgical Details

The mean duration of the surgery was 141 min, ranging from 40 [39,40,41,42] to 540 min [43]. The average radiation time was 154 s, ranging from 16 [44] to 1800 s [45]. Blood loss averaged 335 mL, ranging from 50 to 3000 mL [43]. Of the 53 papers, only 14 documented the implant size (number of holes), with an average plate length of 10 holes, ranging from 5 to 20 holes [39,40,41,42,46,47,48,49,50,51,52].

3.1.3. Radiological Outcomes

The mean follow-up time was documented in 43 papers, with an average of 18.3 months, ranging from 0.5 [53] to 108 months [54]. The average time to union was 18.88 weeks, ranging from 3 [55] to 104 weeks [56]. The reported union rate without surgical intervention was 85.7%, whereas 9.7% required secondary procedures to promote union [38,43,48,50,57,58,59], and approximately 2.3% had persistent nonunion despite follow-up procedures [57,58]. The time to full weight-bearing was extracted from 12 papers, ranging from 5 [43] to 24 weeks [47,60]. The average hospital stay was 12.7 days, ranging from 1 [60] to 61 days [61].

3.1.4. Post-Operative Complications

Table 3 summarizes the occurrence and the severity of the complication rates, and Table 4 summarizes the overall risk of using locked plating for treating distal femur fractures. The most frequent complication was nonunion, occurring at 14.8%. In the event of nonunion, 68% required surgical management. Fixation failure comprising both the plate and screws occurred at a rate of 5.7%, and most of the time required reoperation (76%). Plate failure occurred at a rate of 2.2%, whereas screw-only failure occurred at a rate of 4.2%. Malunion/malalignment was evident at a rate of 13%, and reoperation was required in approximately 18.8% of the cases. Symptomatic implantation, defined as pain or irritation caused by the implant, occurred at a rate of 3.1%, and approximately 35% required surgical management to remove the implant. The infection rate was 3.7%, and approximately 70% required additional surgical management.
The following additional complications were reported: compartment syndrome at 2.1%, heterotrophic ossification at 1.2%, and distal ischemia/vascular injury at 1.4%. In addition, the following systemic complications were reported: Urinary Tract Infection at 2.3%, chest infection/pneumonia at 1.5%, Deep Vein Thrombosis at 5.7%, Pulmonary Embolism at 2.2%, renal failure or acute kidney injury at 0.7%, gastrointestinal complications at 2.9%.

3.1.5. Clinical Outcomes

Table 5 presents the clinical outcomes of the 53 papers included in this review. Functional outcomes were assessed using a variety of different measures. Knee range of motion (ROM) was assessed in 13 papers, with 296 patients achieving an average knee ROM of 103° (0° to 140°). The mean Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score was 78.7, with close to 70% reporting good or excellent outcomes. The mean overall short musculoskeletal functional assessment (SMFA) scores at 6 and 12 months were 46 and 39. The Schatzker and Lambert criteria were assessed in two papers, 45 patients, with more than 50% (24 patients) reporting a good status. Similarly, 45% reported an excellent outcome with the Neer Score.

4. Discussion

This review aimed to quantify the risk associated with locked plate osteosynthesis in distal femur fractures. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first review that utilizes a risk assessment framework to report both the occurrence and severity of complications for distal femur fractures treated with locked plating. Existing articles on this topic most commonly report the frequency of complications in terms of a rate, but this does not fully reflect the severity of harm experienced in all cases. Therefore, in this review, we considered additional factors such as the severity of reported complications and time to full weight-bearing along with the occurrence of complications to provide a complete picture of the risks associated with this procedure. This review found that in the distal femur, nonunion is the most commonly occurring complication (14.8%), which is in line with previously reported values of up to 20% [13,18,62] and posed the highest risk for major or higher harm (~10%) (Table 3).
Ultimately, the goal of fracture fixation is to restore function to the injured bone and permit full weight-bearing. Development in implants and improvements in surgical techniques have made internal fixation the treatment of choice in most distal femoral fractures. Despite the improvements, surgically treated patients still undergo an extended period of restricted weight-bearing that constitutes a temporary disability (~12 weeks). Furthermore, there has been no change in the duration of this disability over the past two decades (Figure 2). The temporary disability caused by locked plating is not commonly considered a negative side effect or harm. This is likely because newer osteosynthesis techniques enable early movement and partial weight-bearing, significantly improving patient recovery compared to older methods requiring prolonged immobility. The temporary disability that arises from restricted weight-bearing is due to fear of implant failure, as current implants are not indicated for early full weight-bearing [20,21,22], particularly in patients where healing may be delayed. As a result, surgeons are conservative concerning post-operative weight-bearing and only encourage patients to increase loading once the visible callus is seen on X-rays. Hence, many patients, regardless of injury severity, are subjected to an extended period of temporary disability, which can impact their daily activities. However, the effect and severity of temporary disability can vary among different population groups, such as the young and the elderly. Studies suggest that muscle atrophy from temporary disability caused by restricted weight-bearing can negatively impact overall limb function [63,64,65]. This is particularly true in elderly patients, who are at an increased risk of losing bone mass and strength due to age, bone quality, and activity levels. As a result, elderly patients are more likely to experience complications due to temporary disability.
In contrast, early mobilization and full weight-bearing following a hip fracture enabled through treatment with internal fixation (plates and screws), hemiarthroplasty, and complete hip replacement have improved functional mobility, reduced the length of the hospital stay, and, more importantly, reduced the risk of morbidity and mortality [69,70,71,72,73]. Similarly, early full weight-bearing after ankle fractures has been shown to accelerate the return to work, reduce the hospital stay [74,75], and improve functional outcomes such as ankle range of motion, functional scores, and mental and physical health [76,77]. Hence, decreasing the period of restricted weight-bearing offers an opportunity to improve the care of distal femur fractures. Recent studies have suggested that early full weight-bearing may be possible after distal femur fractures [24,27,78,79]. For example, Kidiyoor and colleagues [78] showed that full weight-bearing is possible as early as 4–5 weeks post-surgery. Additionally, in his study, Poole highlighted the importance of understanding the biomechanical conditions of locked plates to facilitate early full weight-bearing [24]. However, further clinical evidence and studies are needed to fully understand the effects of weight-bearing status on post-operative complications and its benefits to patients.
Weight-bearing is not only important for enabling a return to activities of daily living but has also been shown to be beneficial for timely secondary bone healing and reducing the likelihood of delayed healing and nonunion, with some studies suggesting fracture movements within the first weeks as being critical to healing [80,81,82]. This highlights the complex interaction between weight-bearing, nonunion, and implant failure. The implant failure rate in this study was relatively low (~5%), which in part may be attributed to restricted/partial weight-bearing. However, restrictions in weight-bearing combined with an overly rigid implant [16,17] have been attributed to mechanical causes of nonunion, which, when combined with all causes, amount to ~14%. This highlights the challenges in implant development to achieve a balance in the strength of the implant to support full weight-bearing without implant failure and provide suitable flexibility to the fracture to induce secondary healing.
In this study, we applied a risk assessment framework proposed by Elahi [35] to quantify the harms associated with locked plating of the distal femur. As highlighted earlier, the strength of this approach is the ability to account for the different severities of harm that may arise. In contrast to systematic reviews intended to compare treatment outcomes (i.e., plating versus nailing), where only high-level clinical evidence is often considered to reduce bias, all levels of clinical evidence were included in this study to accurately represent current clinical outcomes. As the published literature is biased toward teaching/research-based hospitals, the results of this review may be skewed and not representative of all clinical settings. This review suggests that temporary disability is important when discussing the effects of early full weight-bearing after fracture fixation. It is important to note that the review did not quantify temporary disability due to a lack of reported data from the articles included. However, based on the severity scale defined in the study, it is considered a major risk and carries the same severity as a requirement of reoperation. Therefore, when deciding on weight-bearing status, it is important to consider the potential risks and benefits and the patient’s individual characteristics, including any comorbidities that may affect the healing process.

5. Conclusions

This review has identified a variety of harms associated with locked plates. Nonunion/delayed union is the most common harm and is the primary cause of reoperation. While nonunion is the most reported harm in the literature, an “unrecognized” lesser harm exists, but it is significant in that it affects all patients in the extended period of temporary disability due to delayed full weight-bearing during recovery. Therefore, an opportunity exists to further improve fracture treatment by reducing the period of restricted weight-bearing and temporary disability. However, to do so requires an approach that provides adequate strength for early full weight-bearing without risk of implant failure and suitable flexibility to induce stimulatory micromovement to avoid mechanical nonunion.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at:, Supplementary Data_1: (Table S1: Inclusion criteria; Table S2: Exclusion criteria). Supplementary Data_2: (Table S1: Study Characteristics; Table S2: Reported clinical outcomes).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.R.E.; formal analysis, R.G., A.T., G.W., C.D. and D.R.E.; writing—original draft preparation, R.G.; writing—review and editing, A.T., G.W., M.W., L.H.-F., C.D., M.S. and D.R.E.; supervision, M.S. and D.R.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Estimation of Risk

Risk (R) is a combination of occurrence (P1) and severity (P2).
R = P 1 × P 2
Example. A total of 140 nonunion cases were reported in the literature from 29 papers. The total population in the 29 papers where nonunion was reported was 944 patients. Therefore, using the equation below, the probability of the occurrence of nonunion can be estimated to be 14.8%.
P 1 = Total   reported   complication   in   the   29   articles   ( 140 ) Total   popultion   in   which   complication   is   reported   ( 944 ) ~ 14.8 %
The failure of nonunion can have different consequences from conservative management to surgical management, and P2 is the probability of the different severity scales. The severity scales are derived from the literature. Only studies that report how all the harms were divided into the five different severity classes were included.
P 2 n e g l i g i b l e = number of cases in included studies total sample in included studies negligible ( negligible , minor , major , critical , catastrophic )
Hence, the overall risk of nonunion for the different severities is
Risk   of   nonunion negligible =   P 1 × P 2 negligible
Risk   of   nonunion minor =   P 1 × P 2 minor
Risk   of   nonunion major =   P 1 × P 2 major
Risk   of   nonunion critical =   P 1 × P 2 critical
Risk   of   nonunion catastrophic =   P 1 × P 2 catastrophic
The overall state-of-the-art risk for the other harms is calculated by summing each of the five categories.
Overall   risk   = 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7


  1. Butt, M.S.; Krikler, S.J.; Ali, M.S. Displaced Fractures of the Distal Femur in Elderly Patients: Operative versus Non-Operative Treatment. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Ser. B 1996, 78, 110–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gwathmey, F.W.; Jones-Quaidoo, S.M.; Kahler, D.; Hurwitz, S.; Cui, Q. Distal Femoral Fractures: Current Concepts. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2010, 18, 597–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Healy, W.L.; Brooker Andrew, F.; Healthy, W.L.; Brooker, A.F. Distal Femoral Fractures. Comparison of Open and Closed Methods of Treatment. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1983, 174, 166–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Cronier, P.; Pietu, G.; Dujardin, C.; Bigorre, N.; Ducellier, F.; Gerard, R. The Concept of Locking Plates. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2010, 96, S17–S36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Krettek, C.; Müller, M.; Miclau, T. Evolution of Minimally Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis (MIPO) in the Femur. Injury 2001, 32, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Perren, S.M. Fracture Healing: Fracture Healing Understood as the Result of a Fascinating Cascade of Physical and Biological Interactions. Part II. Acta Chir. Orthop. Traumatol. Cech. 2015, 82, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Giannoudis, P.V.; Schneider, E. Principles of Fixation of Osteoporotic Fractures. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Ser. B 2006, 88, 1272–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Miranda, M.A. Locking Plate Technology and Its Role in Osteoporotic Fractures. Injury 2007, 38, 35–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Von Rüden, C.; Augat, P. Failure of Fracture Fixation in Osteoporotic Bone. Injury 2016, 47, S3–S10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Weight, M.; Collinge, C. Early Results of the Less Invasive Stabilization System for Mechanically Unstable Fractures of the Distal Femur (AO/OTA Types A2, A3, C2, and C3). J. Orthop. Trauma 2004, 18, 503–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ricci, W.M.; Streubel, P.N.; Morshed, S.; Collinge, C.A.; Nork, S.E.; Gardner, M.J. Risk Factors for Failure of Locked Plate Fixation of Distal Femur Fractures: An Analysis of 335 Cases. J. Orthop. Trauma 2014, 28, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Rodriguez, E.K.; Boulton, C.; Weaver, M.J.; Herder, L.M.; Morgan, J.H.; Chacko, A.T.; Appleton, P.T.; Zurakowski, D.; Vrahas, M.S. Predictive Factors of Distal Femoral Fracture Nonunion after Lateral Locked Plating: A Retrospective Multicenter Case-Control Study of 283 Fractures. Injury 2014, 45, 554–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Henderson, C.E.; Lujan, T.J.; Kuhl, L.L.; Bottlang, M.; Fitzpatrick, D.C.; Marsh, J.L. 2010 Mid-America Orthopaedic Association Physician in Training Award: Healing Complications Are Common after Locked Plating for Distal Femur Fractures. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2011, 469, 1757–1765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Märdian, S.; Schaser, K.D.; Duda, G.N.; Heyland, M. Working Length of Locking Plates Determines Interfragmentary Movement in Distal Femur Fractures under Physiological Loading. Clin. Biomech. 2015, 30, 391–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Stoffel, K.; Dieter, U.; Stachowiak, G.; Gächter, A.; Kuster, M.S. Biomechanical Testing of the LCP—How Can Stability in Locked Internal Fixators Be Controlled? Injury 2003, 34, B11–B19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Wang, M.T.; An, V.V.G.; Sivakumar, B.S. Nonunion in Lateral Locked Plating for Distal Femoral Fractures: A Systematic Review. Injury 2019, 50, 1790–1794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Bottlang, M.; Doornink, J.; Lujan, T.J.; Fitzpatrick, D.C.; Marsh, J.L.; Augat, P.; von Rechenberg, B.; Lesser, M.; Madey, S.M. Effects of Construct Stiffness on Healing of Fractures Stabilized with Locking Plates. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 2010, 92, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lujan, T.J.; Henderson, C.E.; Madey, S.M.; Fitzpatrick, D.C.; Marsh, J.L.; Bottlang, M. Locked Plating of Distal Femur Fractures Leads to Inconsistent and Asymmetric Callus Formation. J. Orthop. Trauma 2010, 24, 156–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Koso, R.E.; Terhoeve, C.; Steen, R.G.; Zura, R. Healing, Nonunion, and Re-Operation after Internal Fixation of Diaphyseal and Distal Femoral Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. Orthop. 2018, 42, 2675–2683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Depuy Synthes Important Information (with Cleaning and Sterilization Instructions). Available online: (accessed on 19 May 2022).
  21. Smith & Nephew Instructions for Use—Fracture Fixation Devices, Compression Hip Screws, Cannulated/Bone Screws, Bone Plates, Pins, Wires. Available online: (accessed on 19 May 2022).
  22. Stryker AxSOS 3® Implants Instructions for Use. Available online: (accessed on 19 May 2022).
  23. Consigliere, P.; Iliopoulos, E.; Ads, T.; Trompeter, A. Early versus Delayed Weight Bearing after Surgical Fixation of Distal Femur Fractures: A Non-Randomized Comparative Study. Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2019, 29, 1789–1794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Poole, W.E.C.; Wilson, D.G.G.; Guthrie, H.C.; Bellringer, S.F.; Freeman, R.; Guryel, E.; Nicol, S.G. ‘Modern’ Distal Femoral Locking Plates Allow Safe, Early Weight-Bearing with a High Rate of Union and Low Rate of Failure. Bone Jt. J. 2017, 99, 951–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hustedt, J.W.; Blizzard, D.J.; Baumgaertner, M.R.; Leslie, M.P.; Grauer, J.N. Is It Possible to Train Patients to Limit Weight Bearing on a Lower Extremity? Orthopedics 2012, 35, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Thompson, S.G.; Phillip, R.D.; Roberts, A. How Do Orthopaedic Surgeons and Rehabilitation Professionals Interpret and Assess “toe Touch” Weight Bearing and “Partial” Weight Bearing Status in the Rehabilitation Setting? BMJ Open Sport Exerc. Med. 2018, 4, e000326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Lieder, C.M.; Gaski, G.E.; Virkus, W.W.; Kempton, L.B. Is Immediate Weight-Bearing Safe after Single Implant Fixation of Elderly Distal Femur Fractures? J. Orthop. Trauma 2021, 35, 49–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Raza, M.; Walters, S.; Richardson, C.; Bretherton, C.; Longhurst, K.; Trompeter, A. A National Survey of UK Trauma & Orthopaedic Multidisciplinary Health Professionals. Injury 2021, 53, 427–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Granata, J.D.; Litsky, A.S.; Lustenberger, D.P.; Probe, R.A.; Ellis, T.J. Immediate Weight Bearing of Comminuted Supracondylar Femur Fractures Using Locked Plate Fixation. Orthopedics 2012, 35, 1210–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Ebraheim, N.A.; Martin, A.; Sochacki, K.R.; Liu, J. Nonunion of Distal Femoral Fractures: A Systematic Review. Orthop. Surg. 2013, 5, 46–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Ebraheim, N.A.; Kelley, L.H.; Liu, X.; Thomas, I.S.; Steiner, R.B.; Liu, J. Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fracture after Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review. Orthop. Surg. 2015, 7, 297–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ristevski, B.; Nauth, A.; Williams, D.S.; Hall, J.A.; Whelan, D.B.; Bhandari, M.; Schemitsch, E.H. Systematic Review of the Treatment of Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures. J. Orthop. Trauma 2014, 28, 307–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Griffin, X.L.; Parsons, N.; Zbaeda, M.M.; McArthur, J. Interventions for Treating Fractures of the Distal Femur in Adults. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015, 2015, CD010606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Smith, T.O.; Hedges, C.; MacNair, R.; Schankat, K.; Wimhurst, J.A. The Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of the LISS Plate for Distal Femoral Fractures: A Systematic Review. Injury 2009, 40, 1049–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Elahi, B. Risk Management Process. In Safety Risk Management for Medical Devices; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 49–66. ISBN 9780128092170. [Google Scholar]
  36. BS EN ISO 14971; 2019 BSI British Standards Medical Devices—Application of Risk Management to Medical Devices. The British Standards Institution: London, UK, 2019.
  37. Syed, A.A.; Agarwal, M.; Giannoudis, P.V.; Matthews, S.J.E.E.; Smith, R.M. Distal Femoral Fractures: Long-Term Outcome Following Stabilisation with the LISS. Injury 2004, 35, 599–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Wong, M.K.; Leung, F.; Chow, S.P. Treatment of Distal Femoral Fractures in the Elderly Using a Less-Invasive Plating Technique. Int. Orthop. 2005, 29, 117–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Kolb, W.; Guhlmann, H.; Windisch, C.; Marx, F.; Koller, H.; Kolb, K. Fixation of Periprosthetic Femur Fractures above Total Knee Arthroplasty with the Less Invasive Stabilization System: A Midterm Follow-up Study. J. Trauma Inj. Infect. Crit. Care 2010, 69, 670–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Schandelmaier, P.; Krettek, C.; Miclau, T.; Stephan, C.; Konemann, B.; Tscherne, H. Stabilization of Distal Femoral Fractures Using the LISS. Tech. Orthop. 1999, 14, 230–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Schütz, M.; Müller, M.; Regazzoni, P.; Höntzsch, D.; Krettek, C.; Van der Werken, C.; Haas, N. Use of the Less Invasive Stabilization System (LISS) in Patients with Distal Femoral (AO33) Fractures: A Prospective Multicenter Study. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2005, 125, 102–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Schütz, M.; Haas, N.P.; Schutz, M.; Haas, N.P. LISS—Internal plate fixator. Kongressband/Dtsch. Ges. Chir. Dtsch. Ges. Chir. Kongr. 2001, 118, 375–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kregor, P.J.; Stannard, J.A.; Zlowodzki, M.; Cole, P.A. Treatment of Distal Femur Fractures Using the Less Invasive Stabilization System: Surgical Experience and Early Clinical Results in 103 Fractures. J. Orthop. Trauma 2004, 18, 509–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wick, M.; Müller, E.J.; Kutscha-Lissberg, F.; Hopf, F.; Muhr, G. Die Operative Versorgung Suprakondylärer Femurfrakturen Bei Liegender Knieendoprothese—“Less Invasive Stabilization System” (LISS) Oder Retrograder Marknagel? Probleme in Der Anwendung Minimal-Invasiver Verfahren. Unfallchirurg 2004, 107, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Schütz, M.; Müller, M.; Krettek, C.; Höntzsch, D.; Regazzoni, P.; Ganz, R.; Haas, N. Minimally Invasive Fracture Stabilization of Distal Femoral Fractures with the LISS: A Prospective Multicenter Study Results of a Clinical Study with Special Emphasis on Difficult Cases. Injury 2001, 32, 48–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hanschen, M.; Biberthaler, P. Re: Mono- versus Polyaxial Locking Plates in Distal Femur Fractures: A Prospective Randomized Multicentre Clinical Trial. Int. Orthop. 2014, 38, 1751–1752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Kanabar, P.; Kumar, V.; Owen, P.J.; Rushton, N. Less Invasive Stabilisation System Plating for Distal Femoral Fractures. J. Orthop. Surg. 2007, 15, 299–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Kregor, P.J.; Stannard, J.; Zlowodzki, M.; Cole, P.A.; Alonso, J. Distal Femoral Fracture Fixation Utilizing the Less Invasive Stabilization System (L.I.S.S.): The Technique and Early Results. Injury 2001, 32, 32–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Markmiller, M.; Konrad, G.; Südkamp, N. Femur-LISS and Distal Femoral Nail for Fixation of Distal Femoral Fractures: Are There Differences in Outcome and Complications? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2004, 426, 252–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. O’Toole, R.V.; Gobezie, R.; Hwang, R.; Chandler, A.R.; Smith, R.M.; Estok, D.M.; Vrahas, M.S. Low Complication Rate of LISS for Femur Fractures Adjacent to Stable Hip or Knee Arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2006, 450, 203–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Schandelmaier, P.; Partenheimer, A.; Koenemann, B.; Grün, O.A.; Krettek, C. Distal Femoral Fractures and LISS Stabilization. Injury 2001, 32, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Schandelmaier, P.; Stephan, C.; Krettek, C.; Tscherne, H. Die LISS-Platte Bei Distalen Oberschenkelfrakturen. Acta Chir. Austriaca 2000, 32, 75–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Althausen, P.L.; Lee, M.A.; Finkemeier, C.G.; Meehan, J.P.; Rodrigo, J.J. Operative Stabilization of Supracondylar Femur Fractures above Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Comparison of Four Treatment Methods. J. Arthroplast. 2003, 18, 834–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Christ, A.B.; Chawla, H.; Gausden, E.B.; Villa, J.C.; Wellman, D.S.; Lorich, D.G.; Helfet, D.L. Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes of Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures Treated with Open Reduction Internal Fixation. J. Orthop. Trauma 2018, 32, 515–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Fulkerson, E.; Tejwani, N.; Stuchin, S.; Egol, K. Management of Periprosthetic Femur Fractures with a First Generation Locking Plate. Injury 2007, 38, 965–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Jang, J.H.; Rhee, S.J.; Jun, S.B.; Choi, Y.Y. Scattering and Clustering the Proximal Screw Construct in Unilateral Locking Plate Osteosynthesis of Distal Femoral Fractures. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2021, 142, 2193–2203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society. Are Locking Constructs in Distal Femoral Fractures Always Best? A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Less Invasive Stabilization System with the Minimally Invasive Dynamic Condylar Screw System. J. Orthop. Trauma 2016, 30, e1–e6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Gavaskar, A.S.; Tummala, N.C.; Subramanian, M. The Outcome and Complications of the Locked Plating Management for the Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures after a Total Knee Arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop. Surg. 2013, 5, 124–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Hoffmann, M.F.; Jones, C.B.; Sietsema, D.L.; Koenig, S.J.; Tornetta, P. Outcome of Periprosthetic Distal Femoral Fractures Following Knee Arthroplasty. Injury 2012, 43, 1084–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Kayali, C.; Agus, H.; Turgut, A. Successful Results of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Comminuted Supracondylar Femoral Fractures with LISS: Comparative Study of Multiply Injured and Isolated Femoral Fractures. J. Orthop. Sci. 2007, 12, 458–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Fankhauser, F.; Gruber, G.; Schippinger, G.; Boldin, C.; Hofer, H.P.; Grechenig, W.; Szyszkowitz, R. Minimal-Invasive Treatment of Distal Femoral Fractures with the LISS (Less Invasive Stabilization System)—A Prospective Study of 30 Fractures with a Follow up of 20 Months. Acta Orthop. Scand. 2004, 75, 56–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Southeast Fracture Consortium. LCP versus LISS in the Treatment of Open and Closed Distal Femur Fractures: Does It Make a Difference? J. Orthop. Trauma 2016, 30, e212–e216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Stinner, D.J.; Rivera, J.C.; Smith, C.S.; Weiss, D.B.; Hymes, R.A.; Matuszewski, P.E.; Gary, J.L.; Morshed, S.; Schmidt, A.H.; Wilken, J.M.; et al. Early Advanced Weight-Bearing after Periarticular Fractures: A Randomized Trial Comparing Antigravity Treadmill Therapy Versus Standard of Care. J. Orthop. Trauma 2022, 36, S8–S13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Lloyd, S.A.; Lang, C.H.; Zhang, Y.; Paul, E.M.; Laufenberg, L.J.; Lewis, G.S.; Donahue, H.J. Interdependence of Muscle Atrophy and Bone Loss Induced by Mechanical Unloading. J. Bone Miner. Res. 2014, 29, 1118–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Buckwalter, M.S.; Grodzinsky, A.J. Loading of Healing Bone, Fibrous Tissue, and Muscle. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 1999, 7, 291–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Horneff, J.G.; Scolaro, J.A.; Jafari, S.M.; Mirza, A.; Parvizi, J.; Mehta, S. Intramedullary Nailing Versus Locked Plate for Treating Supracondylar Periprosthetic Femur Fractures. Orthopedics 2013, 36, e561–e566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sreedhar, M.; Luther, M.E.; Anudeep, B.; Prashanth, S.; Madhav, V. Functional and Radiological Outcome of Distal Femoral Fractures Treated with Locking Compression Plate. J. Evol. Med. Dent. Sci. 2015, 4, 6664–6671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hahn, U.; Prokop, A.; Jubel, A.; Isenberg, J.; Rehm, K.E. LISS versus Kondylenplatte [LISS versus condylar plate]. Kongressband. Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Chirurgie. Kongress 2002, 119, 498–504. [Google Scholar]
  69. Warren, J.; Sundaram, K.; Anis, H.; McLaughlin, J.; Patterson, B.; Higuera, C.A.; Piuzzi, N.S. The Association between Weight-Bearing Status and Early Complications in Hip Fractures. Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2019, 29, 1419–1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Malik, A.T.; Quatman-Yates, C.; Phieffer, L.S.; Ly, T.V.; Khan, S.N.; Quatman, C.E. Factors Associated with Inability to Bear Weight Following Hip Fracture Surgery: An Analysis of the ACS-NSQIP Hip Fracture Procedure Targeted Database. Geriatr. Orthop. Surg. Rehabil. 2019, 10, 2151459319837481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ariza-Vega, P.; Jiménez-Moleón, J.J.; Kristensen, M.T. Non-Weight-Bearing Status Compromises the Functional Level up to 1 Yr after Hip Fracture Surgery. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2014, 93, 641–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Handoll, H.H.G.; Parker, M.J. Conservative versus Operative Treatment for Hip Fractures in Adults. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2008, CD000337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Kubiak, E.N.; Beebe, M.J.; North, K.; Hitchcock, R.; Potter, M.Q. Early Weight Bearing after Lower Extremity Fractures in Adults. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2012, 21, 727–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Simanski, C.J.P.; Maegele, M.G.; Lefering, R.; Lehnen, D.M.; Kawel, N.; Riess, P.; Yücel, N.; Tiling, T.; Bouillon, B. Functional Treatment and Early Weightbearing after an Ankle Fracture: A Prospective Study. J. Orthop. Trauma 2006, 20, 108–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Smeeing, D.P.J.; Houwert, R.M.; Briet, J.P.; Groenwold, R.H.H.; Lansink, K.W.W.; Leenen, L.P.H.; van der Zwaal, P.; Hoogendoorn, J.M.; van Heijl, M.; Verleisdonk, E.J.; et al. Weight-Bearing or Non-Weight-Bearing after Surgical Treatment of Ankle Fractures: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Eur. J. Trauma Emerg. Surg. 2020, 46, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Dehghan, N.; McKee, M.D.; Jenkinson, R.J.; Schemitsch, E.H.; Stas, V.; Nauth, A.; Hall, J.A.; Stephen, D.J.; Kreder, H.J. Early Weightbearing and Range of Motion versus Non-Weightbearing and Immobilization after Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Unstable Ankle Fractures: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Orthop. Trauma 2016, 30, 345–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Egol, K.A.; Dolan, R.; Koval, K.J. Functional Outcome of Surgery for Fractures of the Ankle. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Ser. B 2000, 82, 246–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kidiyoor, B.; Kilaru, P.; Rachakonda, K.R.; Joseph, V.M.; Subramaniam, G.V.; Sankineani, S.R.; Nugur, A.; Gurava Reddy, A.V. Clinical Outcomes in Periarticular Knee Fractures with Flexible Fixation Using Far Cortical Locking Screws in Locking Plate: A Prospective Study. Musculoskelet. Surg. 2019, 103, 149–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Bruggers, J.; Jeray, K.; Tanner, S.; Israel, H.; Dawson, S.; Cannada, L. Early Weight Bearing after Distal Femur Fractures in the Elderly: A Prospective, Cohort Pilot Study. J. Orthop. Exp. Innov. 2020, 1, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Tufekci, P.; Tavakoli, A.; Dlaska, C.; Neumann, M.; Shanker, M.; Saifzadeh, S.; Steck, R.; Schuetz, M.; Epari, D. Early Mechanical Stimulation Only Permits Timely Bone Healing in Sheep. J. Orthop. Res. 2018, 36, 1790–1796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Windolf, M.; Ernst, M.; Schwyn, R.; Arens, D.; Zeiter, S. The Relation between Fracture Activity and Bone Healing with Special Reference to the Early Healing Phase—A Preclinical Study. Injury 2021, 52, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Epari, D.R.; Taylor, W.R.; Heller, M.O.; Duda, G.N. Mechanical Conditions in the Initial Phase of Bone Healing. Clin. Biomech. 2006, 21, 646–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses) chart illustrating the selection process.
Figure 1. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses) chart illustrating the selection process.
Jcm 13 01492 g001
Figure 2. Average time to full weight-bearing over publication date [10,11,40,43,47,48,51,52,60,66,67,68]. Error bars indicate the maximum and minimum time. Over the past two decades, no significant shortening of the patient’s time to full weight-bearing can be observed.
Figure 2. Average time to full weight-bearing over publication date [10,11,40,43,47,48,51,52,60,66,67,68]. Error bars indicate the maximum and minimum time. Over the past two decades, no significant shortening of the patient’s time to full weight-bearing can be observed.
Jcm 13 01492 g002
Table 1. Shows the generic primary search statement used, and minor adjustments were made accordingly to account for the requirements for different databases.
Table 1. Shows the generic primary search statement used, and minor adjustments were made accordingly to account for the requirements for different databases.
(((plate* OR plati* OR fixat*) AND (lock* OR bridg* OR ((angle OR angul*) AND (stable OR stabili* OR fixed)))) OR “Less Invasive stabilization system” OR “Less invasive stabilization system” OR Axsos OR (non-contact AND bridg*) OR (NCB and Zimmer) OR (LCP AND (plate* OR Synthes)) OR Peri-loc) AND (femur* OR femor*) AND fractur*AND (distal OR supracondyl* OR condyl* OR ((AO OR ASIF OR OTA) AND (33 OR 32))) NOT cadaver AND (english[Language] OR german[Language])
Table 2. Severity definitions for harms following treatment of distal femur fractures according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE).
Table 2. Severity definitions for harms following treatment of distal femur fractures according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE).
InfectionExposure, but no clinical manifestation of infectionManaged by use of antibiotics (oral or IV) or outpatient wound managementRequires surgical management, e.g., surgical tissue debridement, implant removalSystemic life-threatening infection or results in permanent unmanageable functional deficitsDeath
Delayed/NonunionAsymptomatic with no functional deficitDoes not require revisional surgeryRequires revision surgery or manageable serious permanent functional deficitRequires revision surgery and results in an unmanageable serious permanent functional deficit
Symptomatic ImplantAsymptomatic—no intervention requiredPain discomfort related to the implant not requiring surgical managementPain discomfort related to the implant requires surgical managementImplant results in an unmanageable serious permanent functional deficit and requires surgical management
MalunionAsymptomatic with no functional deficitMalunion not requiring revisional surgeryMalunion that undergoes revisional surgery; significant manageable, functional impactsMalunion that results in an unmanageable serious permanent functional deficit
Implant FailureDoes not require revisional surgeryFixation failure not requiring revisional surgeryRequires revisional surgery or hospitalization. Significant long-term functional impairmentRequires revisional surgery or hospitalization. Requires assistance for mobility and daily living
Table 3. A summary of the occurrence and the severity of the harms identified in this review. The “Total Cases” column represents the number of patients in which the mentioned harm was reported, and “Total Patients” represents the total population in papers that report the harm. The P1 column indicates how frequently a given harm occurs. The P2 column subdivides each harm into different severities. For example, a major or critical severity would require reoperation, leading to hospitalization, whereas a negligible severity would not require any surgical intervention or hospitalization.
Table 3. A summary of the occurrence and the severity of the harms identified in this review. The “Total Cases” column represents the number of patients in which the mentioned harm was reported, and “Total Patients” represents the total population in papers that report the harm. The P1 column indicates how frequently a given harm occurs. The P2 column subdivides each harm into different severities. For example, a major or critical severity would require reoperation, leading to hospitalization, whereas a negligible severity would not require any surgical intervention or hospitalization.
No. of ArticlesTotal CasesTotal PatientsProbability of
Severity (If Reported)
(P1 × P2)
Implant Failure (Plate and Screw)346912105.7%0%24%76%0%0%1.37%4.33%0%
Table 4. A summary of the overall risk of using locked plating for treating distal femur fractures. The results show that when locked plating is used to treat distal femur fractures, 20.66% (major and critical) of the time, surgical intervention is required to address complications.
Table 4. A summary of the overall risk of using locked plating for treating distal femur fractures. The results show that when locked plating is used to treat distal femur fractures, 20.66% (major and critical) of the time, surgical intervention is required to address complications.
Overall risk from the use of locking plates in distal femur fractures5.86%13.80%16.76%3.90%0%
Table 5. Summary of the most reported clinical outcomes.
Table 5. Summary of the most reported clinical outcomes.
Knee Range of Motion
No. of papers (total number of patients)Mean (range)
13 (296 patients)103° (0–140°)
Neer Score
No. of papers
(No. of patients)
5 (89 patients)45%31%18%6%
Hospital of Special Surgery (HSS)
No. of papers
(No. of patients)
4 (72 patients)33%36%12%7%
Schatzker and Lambert
No. of papers
(No. of patients)
2 (45 patients)22%53%16%9%
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gurung, R.; Terrill, A.; White, G.; Windolf, M.; Hofmann-Fliri, L.; Dlaska, C.; Schuetz, M.; Epari, D.R. Severity of Complications after Locking Plate Osteosynthesis in Distal Femur Fractures. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 1492.

AMA Style

Gurung R, Terrill A, White G, Windolf M, Hofmann-Fliri L, Dlaska C, Schuetz M, Epari DR. Severity of Complications after Locking Plate Osteosynthesis in Distal Femur Fractures. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(5):1492.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gurung, Roshan, Alexander Terrill, Gentry White, Markus Windolf, Ladina Hofmann-Fliri, Constantin Dlaska, Michael Schuetz, and Devakara R. Epari. 2024. "Severity of Complications after Locking Plate Osteosynthesis in Distal Femur Fractures" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 5: 1492.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop