摘要
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 re-vealed that 11 fractures managed with the LISS were performed according to the recommended principles(LISS-R)and 9 were not(LISS-N).Union occurred in67.9%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.
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 re-vealed 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.
