With an aging population and increase in total knee arthroplasty, periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PDFFs) have increased. The differences between these fractures and native distal femur fractures (NDFF) have not been comprehensively investigated. The purpose of this study was to compare the demographic, fracture, and treatment details of PDFFs compared to NDFFs.

A retrospective study of patients ≥ 18 years old who underwent surgical treatment for either a NDFF or a PDFF from 2010 to 2020 at a level 1 trauma center was performed. Demographics, AO/OTA fracture classification, quality of reduction, fixation constructs, and unplanned revision reoperation were compared between PDFF patients and NDFF patients using t-test and Fisher's exact test. 209 patients were identified with 70 patients having a PDFF and 139 patients having a NDFF. Of note, 48% of NDFF had a concomitant fracture of the ipsilateral knee (14%) or tibial plateau (15%). The most common AO/OTA classification for PDFFs was 33A3.3 (71%). NDFFs had two main AO/OTA classifications of 33C2.2 (28%) or 33A3.2. (25%). When controlling for patient age, bone quality, fracture classification, and fixation, the PDFF group had increased revision reoperation rate compared to NDFF (P < 0.05).

PDFFs tend to occur in elderly patients with low bone quality, have complete metaphyseal comminution, and be isolated; whereas, NDFF tend to occur in younger patients, have less metaphyseal comminution, and be associated with other fractures. When controlling for variables, PDFF are at increased risk of unplanned revision reoperation. Surgeons should be aware of these increased risks in PDFFs and future research should focus on these unique fracture characteristics to improve outcomes.

Determine the prevalence, etiologies, and risk factors of unplanned return to the OR (UROR) in adult orthopaedic trauma patients.

Retrospective review of a trauma prospective registry from 2014 – 2019 at a Level 1 academic hospital. An UROR was defined as a patient returning to OR unexpectedly following a planned definitive surgery to either readdress the presenting diagnosis or address a complication arising from the index procedure. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was performed comparing those patients with an UROR versus those without.

A total of 1568 patients were reviewed. The rate of UROR was 9.8% (153 patients). Symptomatic implant was the leading cause of UROR (60%). Other significant UROR causes were infection (15%) and implant failure (9%). The median time between index procedure and UROR was 301 days.

For the univariate and multivariate analysis, open fracture (p< 0.05), fracture complexity (p<0.01), and weekend procedure (p< 0.01) were all associated with increased risk of UROR. All other variables were not statistically significant for any associations.

Those patients with an UROR for reasons other than symptomatic implants were more likely to have polyorthopaedic injuries (p < 0.05), ISS > 15 (p < 0.05), osteoporosis (p < 0.01), ICU status (p < 0.05), psychiatric history (p < 0.05), compartment syndrome (p < 0.05), neurovascular injury (p < 0.01), open fracture (p < 0.05), and fracture complexity (p < 0.05).

The rate of UROR in the orthopaedic trauma patient population is 10%. Most of these cases are due to implant-related issues. UROR for reasons other than symptomatic implants tend to be polytraumatized patients with higher-energy injuries, multiple complex fractures, and associated soft tissue injuries. Future focus on improved implant development and treatments for polytraumatized patients with complex fractures is warranted to decrease a relatively high UROR rate in orthopaedic trauma.