Background: The treatment of transitional ankle fractures (Tillaux and triplane) is often dictated by the amount of displacement at the articular surface. Although >2 mm is a common indication for operative management, this practice has not been strongly supported by either the pediatric or adult literature. The purpose of this study was to determine whether operative treatment of transitional fractures with 2 to 5 mm of intra-articular gap leads to superior functional outcomes compared with cast management. Methods: A retrospective review of all patients treated for distal tibial fractures at a single institution between 2009 and 2017 was conducted. Computed tomographic images obtained after closed reduction were reviewed to identify patients with 2 to 5 mm of displacement (either gap or step-off) at the articular surface of the tibial plafond. Complications were classified according to the modified Clavien-Dindo system. Only patients with functional outcome data (Foot and Ankle Ability Measure [FAAM]) at a minimum of 2 years after treatment were included. Two multivariable linear regression models were developed using backward stepwise regression with either the FAAM Sports score or the Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE) Sports score as the dependent variables. Results: Fifty-seven patients (34 with triplane fractures and 23 with Tillaux fractures) with a mean follow-up of 4.5 years (range, 2.0 to 9.2 years) met inclusion criteria. Thirty-four patients were treated operatively, and 23 patients were treated with closed reduction and cast application. Nonoperative treatment, greater intra-articular gap, and presence of a grade-III complication were associated with worse functional outcomes in both multivariable regression models. A gap after closed reduction remained a negative predictor of functional outcome even in patients who were treated operatively. Patients who were treated nonoperatively and had ≤2.5 mm of gap had a significantly higher mean SANE Sports score at 90% than those patients with >2.5 mm of gap at 75% (p = 0.03). Conclusions: In Tillaux and triplane fractures with 2 to 5 mm of gap at the tibial plafond, a greater gap after closed reduction, nonoperative treatment, and complications were negative predictors of functional outcome at a mean follow-up of 4.5 years. Surgical management likely conveys the greatest functional benefit when the intra-articular gap exceeds 2.5 mm. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.

Introduction: This study sought to determine the effect of trauma fellowship training on the surgical decision to fix or revise to distal femoral replacement in periprosthetic distal femur fractures.Methods: An anonymous online survey including nine cases of geriatric periprosthetic distal femur fractures was distributed through the Orthopaedic Trauma Association website. Respondents were asked whether they would recommend fixation or revision to distal femoral replacement. Fractures were classified by the location relative to the anterior flange (proximal or distal) and the presence or absence of comminution. Recommendations were compared between type of fellowship completed (trauma, arthroplasty, or both), practice setting, and number of periprosthetic distal femur fractures treated monthly.Results: One hundred fifty-one surgeon survey responses were included. Completion of a trauma fellowship was associated with a higher likelihood of recommending fixation for any periprosthetic distal femur fracture compared with arthroplasty training (odds ratio [OR] 2.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.97 to 3.29; P , 0.0001). Disagreement was significant for comminuted proximal (OR 6.90, 95% CI 3.24 to 14.68; P , 0.0001), simple distal (OR 20.90, 95% CI 6.41 to 67.71; P , 0.001), and comminuted distal fractures (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.66 to 3.68; P , 0.0001). Dual fellowship-trained surgeons were less likely to recommend fixation than surgeons who completed a trauma fellowship alone (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.93; P = 0.027) and more likely to recommend fixation than surgeons who completed an arthroplasty fellowship alone (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.63; P = 0.012). Surgeons who treat three or more periprosthetic distal femur fractures monthly showed a significant preference for fracture fixation compared with lower volume surgeons (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.62 to 3.68; P , 0.0001).