Category Archives: Vol 10 | Issue 1 | January-June 2024
Single-Stage BMAC in a Collagen Scaffold Achieves Hyaline-Like Regeneration Superior to Micro fracture and Equivalent to ACI in Medium/Large Knee Defects”
Vol 10 | Issue 1 | January-June 2024 | page: 54-57 | Shaunak Pathwardhan, Parag Sancheti, Kailas Patil, Sunny Gugale, Sahil Sanghavi, Yogesh Sisodiya, Obaid UL Nisar, Darshan Sonawane, Ashok Shyam
https://doi.org/10.13107/jmt.2024.v10.i01.224
Author: Shaunak Pathwardhan [1], Parag Sancheti [1], Kailas Patil [1], Sunny Gugale [1], Sahil Sanghavi [1], Yogesh Sisodiya [1], Obaid UL Nisar [1], Darshan Sonawane [1], Ashok Shyam [1]
[1] Department of Orthopaedics, Sancheti Institute of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Address of Correspondence
Dr. Shaunak Patwardhan,
Department of Orthopaedics, Sancheti Institute of Orthopaedics and
Rehabilitation, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
E-mail: patwardhanshaunak@gmail.com
Abstract
Background: Focal full-thickness chondral defects of the femoral condyles cause persistent knee pain, swelling and reduced function in adults. Articular cartilage has limited healing potential, so symptomatic lesions frequently become chronic and may contribute to early osteoarthritis. Surgeons manage these defects with techniques such as microfracture, osteochondral graft transfer, autologous chondrocyte implantation and single-stage biologic augmentation using bone marrow aspirate concentrate. Selecting the optimal approach depends on lesion size, location, patient age, activity goals and coexisting knee pathology.
Hypothesis: Surgical intervention for symptomatic full-thickness femoral condylar defects will produce meaningful improvements in pain and function at one year across commonly used techniques when the procedure is matched to lesion and patient characteristics. Younger age, lower body mass index and shorter symptom duration are expected to be associated with larger gains in validated patient-reported outcomes. Regenerative procedures may demonstrate superior structural repair on imaging, but early clinical improvements are predicted to be similar across appropriate techniques.
Clinical importance: This study offers practical guidance: individualized surgical care can reduce symptoms and restore knee function within a year, usually with low complication rates when standard perioperative pathways and rehabilitation are followed. Focusing on modifiable factors such as weight management and timely referral can improve outcomes. Where resources or logistics limit options, single-stage techniques provide a pragmatic route, while cell-based restoration remains valuable for larger defects when long-term tissue quality is a priority.
Future research: Randomized, longer term trials with standardized rehabilitation, routine MRI assessment and, where feasible, tissue evaluation are needed to compare durability between marrow-stimulation and regenerative strategies. Economic analyses and return-to-activity metrics should be incorporated to guide value-based care. Including patient-reported quality of life measures and stratified subgroup analyses will improve applicability across diverse patient populations.
Keywords: Chondral defect, Femoral condyle, Cartilage repair, Microfracture, Autologous chondrocyte implantation, Bone marrow aspirate concentrate
Background
Articular cartilage is the smooth, slippery tissue that allows our knee joints to glide and bear weight. When a focal full thickness chondral or osteochondral defect develops on the femoral condyles, patients typically experience pain, swelling, and reduced ability to walk, run or return to sports. Because cartilage has very limited capacity to heal on its own, these defects can persist and sometimes lead to early joint degeneration if not treated appropriately [1, 2]. Painful cartilage lesions are common findings at knee arthroscopy, reinforcing the need to choose effective, patient centred treatment options [3, 4].
Over the years, surgeons have developed three broad strategies to manage symptomatic focal cartilage defects: palliative procedures (for example, arthroscopic debridement), reparative methods (most commonly microfracture), and restorative or regenerative techniques (such as osteochondral grafts and cell based therapies) [5–7]. Each approach has pros and cons. Microfracture is simple and inexpensive and often helps small to medium defects—especially in younger patients—but the repair tissue tends to be fibrocartilage rather than true hyaline cartilage and may wear out sooner in larger or high demand lesions [8–10]. Osteochondral autograft transfer (mosaicplasty) replaces the damaged area with native hyaline cartilage from a non weight bearing site and works well for small defects, but it is limited by donor site issues and the practical size of the grafts [11,12]. Fresh osteochondral allografts can treat larger defects without donor site morbidity but bring logistical and availability hurdles [13].
Cell based restoration, such as autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) and matrix assisted ACI, aims to restore a surface that more closely resembles native cartilage; these techniques have shown durable benefits in selected patients, particularly those who are younger and more active [14–16]. In recent years, one stage biologic approaches using bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) or platelet rich products on scaffolds have become popular because they try to combine regenerative potential with the convenience and lower cost of a single operation; early reports suggest promising clinical and MRI results, although long term data are still limited [17–19].
Picking the right treatment comes down to matching the patient and the lesion. Important considerations include the size and location of the defect, the patient’s age and activity goals, body weight, limb alignment, and whether other knee problems (meniscal tears, ligament injuries) need addressing at the same time [20–22]. The scientific literature includes many case series and some comparative studies, but randomized trials remain few and the results are mixed, which means surgeons often make decisions based on a combination of evidence, experience and patient preference [23, 24].
This synopsis draws on a prospective single centre cohort that compared three commonly used strategies—microfracture, two stage ACI and single stage BMAC—for symptomatic full thickness femoral condylar defects larger than 2 cm². Outcomes were tracked using validated patient reported tools (IKDC and KOOS) at baseline, 6 months and 12 months, and MRI (MOCART) where available. The aim was practical: to describe short term improvements patients can expect, and to identify which patient factors most strongly influence those results.
Hypothesis
The central idea guiding this study was straightforward: surgical treatment for symptomatic full thickness femoral condylar defects will lead to meaningful improvement in pain and function by one year, but the size of that improvement depends more on patient factors—age, body mass index (BMI), and how long the problem has been present—than on the specific technique used when each procedure is chosen appropriately.
More specifically:
• We expected that microfracture, ACI and BMAC would each produce measurable and clinically important gains in IKDC and KOOS scores at 6 and 12 months compared with where patients started before surgery. While ACI and BMAC target regeneration and might show better tissue repair on imaging, short term functional gains in real world practice may be similar across techniques when surgeons select patients to match the strengths of each approach [8, 14, 17].
• Younger patients, those with lower BMI and those who have surgery soon after symptoms begin were expected to do better regardless of surgical choice. These factors make biological sense: younger tissue heals more readily, lower body weight reduces mechanical stress, and treating the problem earlier may prevent chronic changes that blunt repair [20–22].
• Imaging—MRI MOCART scores and, where available, second look inspection—was expected to show superior structural fill with regenerative approaches (ACI, BMAC) compared with microfracture. However, we believed that better MRI appearance would not always translate into vastly superior patient reported function within the first postoperative year, because tissue maturation and adaptation take time [16, 18].
• From a safety and practicality perspective, single stage procedures (microfracture, BMAC) should be more convenient and less costly, while ACI would be more resource intensive but potentially more suitable for larger defects.
These hypotheses shaped the analyses: we compared score changes over time between groups and used multivariable models to test which patient factors independently predicted better outcomes.
Discussion
In this cohort, patients treated for full thickness femoral condylar defects showed meaningful improvements in function and symptoms at 6 and 12 months after surgery. Across the three techniques—microfracture, ACI and BMAC—patients generally improved and differences between groups at one year were small. This suggests that when surgeons pick the right patient for each procedure, different surgical strategies can all lead to worthwhile short term benefit [8, 16, and 17].
Two patient characteristics stood out as predictors of better recovery: younger age and lower BMI. Patients who had surgery sooner after symptom onset also tended to do better. These findings reflect common clinical sense and prior reports: biological healing potential, lower mechanical loading, and avoiding chronicity help drive recovery [20–22].
MRI evaluation tended to favour regenerative approaches (ACI, BMAC) in terms of defect fill and surface congruity. Still, better imaging did not always equate to better patient reported outcomes at one year. This mismatch between image and symptoms is well recognized—patients feel better for many reasons beyond the tissue seen on MRI, and repair tissue continues to remodel after the first year [16, 18]. Complications were infrequent and mostly minor in this series.
The study has limitations worth noting. It was not randomized and reflects single centre experience, so selection and surgeon biases influence which patients received which treatment. The sample size was modest and follow up limited to one year, which is too short to comment on long term durability or the potential to prevent osteoarthritis. Also, we lacked histologic confirmation of repair tissue in most cases, which limits conclusions about the exact quality of the new cartilage.
Despite these limitations, the practical message is clear: surgical repair for symptomatic focal full thickness chondral defects can produce meaningful short term improvements, and clinicians should consider patient factors (age, BMI, timing) when choosing among effective options. In settings where resources or logistics constrain choices, single stage options like microfracture or BMAC can be reasonable, while ACI remains an option for larger defects where restoring hyaline like tissue is a priority.
Clinical Importance
Painful chondral defects of the femoral condyle limit activity and reduce quality of life. This study shows that, with appropriate case selection, microfracture, ACI and BMAC each can substantially reduce symptoms and improve knee function within a year of surgery, with low rates of complications. Younger patients, those with lower BMI, and those treated earlier after symptom onset are more likely to experience better outcomes. Discussing these factors openly with patients helps set realistic expectations and tailor treatment to individual goals.
Future Directions
Longer follow up studies, ideally randomized, are needed to compare durability between marrow stimulation and regenerative strategies. Research should combine patient outcomes with standard MRI scoring and, where possible, tissue sampling to link repair quality with long term function. Economic analyses and return to activity measures will also help clinicians choose cost effective treatments for different patient groups.
References
1. Curl WW, Krome J, Gordon ES, Rushing J, Smith BP, Poehling GG. Cartilage injuries: a review of 31,516 knee arthroscopies. Arthroscopy. 1997; 13(4):456–60.
2. Flanigan DC, Harris JD, Trinh TQ, Siston RA, Brophy RH. Prevalence of chondral defects in athletes’ knees: a systematic review. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010; 42(10):1795–801.
3. Widuchowski W, Widuchowski J, Trzaska T. Articular cartilage defects: study of 25,124 knee arthroscopies. Knee. 2007; 14:177–82.
4. Migliorini F, Eschweiler J, Schenker H, Baroncini A, Tingart M, Maffulli N. Surgical management of focal chondral defects of the knee: a Bayesian network meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021; 16(1):543.
5. Seo SS, Kim CW, Jung ADW. Management of focal chondral lesion in the knee joint. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2011; 23(4):185–96.
6. Bedi A, Feeley BT, Williams RJ 3rd. Management of articular cartilage defects of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010; 92(4):994–1009.
7. Chubinskaya S, Haudenschild D, Gasser S, et al. Articular cartilage injury and potential remedies. J Orthop Trauma. 2015; 29(Suppl):S47–52.
8. Steadman JR, Rodkey WG, Briggs KK. Microfracture technique and outcomes. J Knee Surg. 2002; 15(3):170–6.
9. Mithoefer K, McAdams T, Williams RJ, Kreuz PC, Mandelbaum BR. Clinical efficacy of microfracture: evidence-based analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2009; 37(10):2053–63.
10. Steadman JR, Briggs KK, Rodrigo JJ, Kocher MS, Gill TJ, Rodkey WG. Outcomes of microfracture: average 11-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2003; 19(5):477–84.
11. Hangody L, Feczko P, Bartha L, et al. Mosaicplasty for the treatment of articular cartilage defects: long-term results and a new one-step technique. Orthopedics. 2001; 24(9):821–7.
12. Marcacci M, Zaffagnini S, Iacono F, et al. Autologous osteochondral transplantation for chondral defects of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2005; 13(8):673–7.
13. Bugbee WD. Fresh osteochondral allografts. J Knee Surg. 2002; 15(3):191–5.
14. Peterson L, Minas T, Brittberg M, Nilsson A, Sjogren-Johnson E, Lindahl A. Two- to 9-year outcome after autologous chondrocyte transplantation of the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000 ;( 374):212–34.
15. Kon E, Filardo G, Delcogliano M, et al. Long-term outcomes after autologous chondrocyte implantation. Am J Sports Med. 2011; 39(6):1234–43.
16. Kon E, Condello V, Delcogliano M, Filardo G. Biologic approaches for cartilage repair. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012; 20(6):1227–39.
17. Gobbi A, Whyte GP, Diaz-Rodriguez S. BMAC and scaffold techniques for cartilage repair: clinical results. Cartilage. 2015; 6(1):29–41.
18. Soler R, Lavernia C, Galache F, et al. MRI evaluation after cartilage repair: correlation with clinical outcomes. Eur Radiol. 2013; 23(1):71–9.
19. Steinwachs MR, Kreuz PC, Erggelet C. Overview of biological approaches in cartilage repair: BMAC and platelet concentrates. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2012; 20(4):206–12.
20. Niemeyer P, Pestka JM, Kreuz PC, and et al. Autologous chondrocyte implantation for cartilage defects of the knee: factors influencing outcome. Am J Sports Med. 2012; 40(7):1598–605.
21. Harris JD, Siston RA, Pan X, Flanigan DC, Brophy RH. Predictors of outcome after cartilage repair. Arthroscopy. 2013; 29(1):55–71.
22. Løken S, Heir S, Holme I, Engebretsen L, Årøen A. The effect of timing on cartilage repair outcomes. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013; 21(11):2579–86.
23. Robbennolt FK, Patel RN. Rehabilitation strategies following cartilage procedures: evidence and protocols. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014; 44(8):598–615.
24. Gomoll AH, Madanat R, Bugbee WD. Current and future strategies in cartilage repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014; 96(2):126–39.
25. Filardo G, Kon E, Di Martino A, et al. Marrow stimulation augmented with biological scaffolds: comparative outcomes and indications. Knee. 2016; 23(6):1026–35.
| How to Cite this Article: Patwardhan S, Sancheti P, Patil K, Gugale S, Sanghavi S, Sisodia Y, Nisar OU, Sonawane D, Shyam A. Single-Stage BMAC in a Collagen Scaffold Achieves Hyaline-Like Regeneration Superior to Micro fracture and Equivalent to ACI in Medium/Large Knee Defects. Journal Medical Thesis 2024 January-June ; 10(1):54-57. |
Institute Where Research was Conducted: Department of Orthopaedics, Sancheti Institute of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Shivajinagar, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
University Affiliation: MUHS, Nashik, Maharashtra, India.
Year of Acceptance of Thesis: 2022
Download Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML
Dual-Column Locking Plate Fixation for AO/OTA 33C3 Distal Femur Fractures: A Hypothesis on Enhanced Mechanical Stability and Healing
Vol 10 | Issue 1 | January-June 2024 | page: 50-53 | Raunak Satia, Rajeev Joshi, Sahil Sanghavi, Mahavir Dugad, Darshan Sonawane, Ashok Shyam, Parag Sancheti
https://doi.org/10.13107/jmt.2024.v10.i01.222
Author: Raunak Satia [1], Rajeev Joshi [1], Sahil Sanghavi [1], Mahavir Dugad [1], Darshan Sonawane [1], Ashok Shyam [1], Parag Sancheti [1]
[1] Department of Orthopaedics, Sancheti Institute of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Address of Correspondence
Dr. Raunak Satia,
Department of Orthopaedics, Sancheti Institute of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
E-mail: raunaksatia670@yahoo.com
Abstract
Background: Distal femur fractures that involve severe metaphyseal and articular comminution (AO 33-C3) remain a major therapeutic challenge. The distal fragment’s short bone stock, frequent osteoporotic bone in older patients, and the complexity of intra-articular fracture patterns increase the risk of loss of reduction, varus collapse and nonunion when fixation is inadequate. Lateral locked plating is widely used and often effective, but in fractures with medial column deficiency or large medial condylar (Hoffa) fragments the lateral construct may behave as a cantilever and be prone to mechanical failure. Contemporary biomechanical and clinical series suggest that adding a medial locking plate restores a two-column support, increases construct stiffness and may reduce mechanical complications in selected, high-risk fractures.
Hypothesis: For skeletally mature patients with AO 33-C3 distal femur fractures and/or clear medial column deficiency, supplementing lateral locked plating with a medial distal femoral locking plate will improve mechanical stability, increase the likelihood of timely radiographic union and reduce rates of varus collapse or implant failure, without an unacceptable rise in wound or soft-tissue complications. When combined with meticulous surgical technique and structured rehabilitation, dual-column fixation should permit safer early joint motion and improved patient-centred functional recovery.
Clinical importance: Identifying fractures that truly lack medial support and applying targeted medial augmentation can meaningfully change outcomes — converting a fragile single-sided construct into a balanced dual-column fixation. For surgeons, the practical benefits are fewer mechanical revisions, more reliable maintenance of alignment, and a better platform for early mobilization. These advantages must be weighed against longer operative time, added implant cost and the need for careful soft-tissue handling to limit wound problems.
Future research: Larger matched-cohort or randomized studies are needed to define precise thresholds of medial bone loss or fragment size that justify medial plating, to compare dual plating with other augmentation strategies, and to analyze cost-effectiveness and standardized rehabilitation protocols.
Keywords: Distal femur fracture, AO 33-C3, Medial plate, Lateral locking plate, Dual plating, Nonunion, Hoffa fragment.
Background
Fractures of the distal femur present a difficult problem for trauma surgeons because they combine an anatomically complex articular surface with often poor bone quality and limited distal bone stock. The injury shows a bimodal distribution — high-energy fractures in younger adults and low-energy osteoporotic fractures in older patients — and accounts for a small proportion of overall fractures but a disproportionate burden of disability when healing or alignment fails. [1–4]
Treatment goals are consistent: restore articular congruity, correct alignment and rotation, preserve limb length, and enable early knee motion. Historically, treatment ranged from conservative management to a variety of internal fixation solutions including blade plates and intramedullary devices; modern locked plating technology gave surgeons a fixed-angle option that improved fixation in osteoporotic bone and allowed percutaneous (biologic) techniques in many cases. [5–7] Despite this progress, complex intra-articular injuries with metaphyseal comminution (AO 33-C3) and fractures with medial column deficiency remain at risk for mechanical failure after lateral locking plate fixation alone. Problems such as varus collapse, screw toggle, plate breakage and nonunion have been reported when medial support is absent. [8–11]
Biomechanical studies show that constructs which provide a medial buttress — either by adding a medial plate or combining a lateral plate with an intramedullary device — markedly increase axial stiffness and reduce displacement under cyclic loading compared with a lone lateral plate in comminuted models. [12–14] Clinically, several retrospective series and single-centre reports describe improved union rates and fewer revisions when a medial plate is added for clearly indicated fractures, although the level of evidence remains limited. [11, 15, 16]
Surgeons weigh the mechanical advantage of a second plate against concerns about increased soft-tissue dissection, operative time, cost and theoretical risks to fragment vascularity. Anatomical and cadaveric work suggest that a medial approach can be performed safely when respecting anatomic safe zones and using minimally invasive techniques where appropriate; vascular compromise does not appear to be a frequent clinical problem when medial fixation is applied judiciously. [17–19]
Practical indications emerging from the literature include: large medial condylar (Hoffa) fragments, medial supracondylar bone loss, peri-prosthetic distal femur fractures, nonunion after failed lateral fixation, severe metaphyseal comminution (AO 33-C3) and poor bone quality. In these situations medial augmentation functions as a buttress that offloads the lateral plate and converts a cantilever construct into a dual-column support, which improves survivorship under physiologic loading. [15, 20–22]
The present single-centre retro-prospective study reviewed 20 skeletally mature patients with AO 33-C3 distal femoral fractures treated with combined lateral locked plate and medial distal femoral locking plate between October 2019 and October 2021. Outcomes recorded through one year included radiographic union, knee range of motion, HSS knee score, SF-36, time to weight-bearing and complications. Results in this cohort (high union rate, no plate failure, manageable wound issues and a majority achieving good knee ROM and HSS/SF-36 scores) mirror the positive signals seen in other dual-plating series and reinforce the rationale for selective medial augmentation in complex distal femur injuries. [1, 11, 16, 23]
Hypothesis and rationale
Primary hypothesis: In skeletally mature patients with AO 33-C3 distal femur fractures and/or medial column deficiency, supplemental medial locking-plate fixation added to a lateral locked plate produces improved mechanical stability that translates into higher union rates, fewer mechanical failures (varus collapse, plate/screw breakage), and at least equivalent — if not superior — functional outcomes compared with expectations from lateral plating alone.
Why this should be true
1. Mechanics. With an absent medial buttress a lateral plate functions as an unsupported cantilever and concentrates bending load on the lateral implant and its distal screws. A medial plate restores the second column and shares axial and bending loads: biomechanical work consistently demonstrates increased axial stiffness and less displacement for dual-plate constructs in comminuted models. [12–14]
2. Biology and function. Rigid anatomic fixation that resists collapse permits early controlled knee motion and protects articular reduction. Where lateral fixation alone risks progressive varus or fragment subsidence, medial augmentation allows safe rehabilitation, which is a key determinant of long-term knee mobility and patient-centred outcomes. [22,24]
3. Targeted, not routine, use. Dual plating is not proposed as the default for all distal femur fractures. Its benefit is greatest where medial stability is clearly compromised: medial Hoffa fragments, peri-prosthetic fractures, nonunion after failed lateral fixation, wide metaphyseal bone loss, or severe osteoporotic comminution (AO 33-C3). Carefully selecting cases maximizes gain and minimizes extra soft-tissue exposure. [15,16,21]
Operational hypotheses for the cohort
• Radiographic union by 12–24 weeks in the majority, with overall union rates comparable to or better than published series of similarly comminuted fractures treated without medial augmentation.
• Low mechanical failure rate (expectation: plate/screw breakage or varus collapse will be uncommon).
• Functional recovery (knee ROM, HSS and SF-36) will be satisfactory in most patients when coupled with structured rehabilitation.
• Complications (wound discharge, superficial infection, and stiffness) will occur but remain manageable without routine implant removal. [1,11,16,23]
Endpoints and thresholds
• Primary: clinical and radiographic union at 52 weeks without mechanical failure.
• Secondary: knee ROM at serial intervals, HSS knee score and SF-36 at one year, time to full weight-bearing, and rates of complications requiring reoperation or prolonged wound care. These endpoints combine mechanical success with outcomes that matter to patients. [1,23]
Discussion
The cohort of 20 patients treated with medial plus lateral locking plates demonstrated encouraging outcomes: the large majority achieved radiographic union within expected timeframes, knee ROM of ≥100° in most patients at one year, favorable HSS and SF-36 scores for the cohort, no implant breakage and a modest rate of wound-related complications and stiffness. These findings are consistent with prior clinical reports that reserve medial augmentation for severely comminuted or medial-deficient fractures. [16, 23, 24]
Why might dual plating work clinically? Mechanically it reduces bending stresses on the lateral plate and distributes load across both columns; biologically it allows more reproducible maintenance of articular reduction and alignment, enabling earlier controlled motion that reduces stiffness. Biomechanical and cadaver studies support these mechanics, and accumulated clinical series suggest fewer catastrophic failures in appropriately selected patients. [12–14, 20]
However, limitations require emphasis. The present study is a small, non-randomized, retro-prospective series without a matched lateral-only comparator; thus selection bias is inherent — surgeons tended to choose medial augmentation for fractures judged most unstable. This limits causal inference about superiority. Also, sample size restricts precise estimation of complication rates. Published literature is similarly dominated by retrospective series and biomechanical work; randomized data are scarce. [9, 20]
Practical lessons for surgeons follow:
• Select patients carefully. Reserve medial augmentation for AO 33-C3 fractures with clear medial column deficiency, large medial condylar (Hoffa) fragments, peri-prosthetic fractures, nonunion after failed lateral plating, and severe osteoporotic metaphyseal comminution. Routine dual plating where not indicated adds exposure without clear benefit. [15,16,21]
• Respect soft tissues. A single longitudinal medial incision or minimally invasive medial plate insertion reduces soft-tissue morbidity compared with extensive dissection. Anatomical studies define safe zones; strict surgical technique and gentle handling of soft tissues reduce wound complications. [17,18]
• Stage rehabilitation. Encourage early controlled knee motion but delay unprotected full weight-bearing until radiographic consolidation (bridging on at least three cortices). Individualize protocols for elderly/osteoporotic patients. Structured physiotherapy mitigates long-term stiffness. [22,24]
• Plan for cost and time. Dual plating increases implant use and OR time; however, if it reduces the need for costly revisions, it may be cost-effective for high-risk fractures — a question for formal health-economic study. [20,25]
From a research standpoint, the field needs larger comparative cohorts or randomized trials to determine thresholds of medial bone loss or fragment size where medial augmentation meaningfully changes outcomes. Biomechanical refinements (optimal plate placement and screw strategies in osteoporotic bone) and standardization of postoperative protocols would also enhance evidence-based practice. [12, 25]
Clinical importance
For practising orthopaedic surgeons: medial plate augmentation is a practical option when the medial column is compromised. It restores a mechanical buttress, decreases bending load on the lateral implant, and can reduce the risk of varus collapse and nonunion in AO 33-C3 and other high-risk patterns. Appropriate case selection, careful soft-tissue technique (or minimally invasive medial insertion), and a rehabilitation plan that encourages early controlled motion but delays full weight-bearing until radiographic healing produce the best outcomes. The technique should be seen as a targeted adjunct in a surgeon’s toolkit rather than as routine for all distal femur fractures. [15, 17, 22]
Future directions
Priority research includes multicentre, matched-cohort or randomized comparisons of lateral-only versus lateral+medial fixation for comparable AO 33-C3 fractures, cost-effectiveness analyses, and biomechanical work to optimize plate placement and screw patterns for osteoporotic bone. Registry data for peri-prosthetic fractures and standardized rehabilitation trials would also clarify best practice and help develop evidence-based algorithms for when to add medial fixation. [20, 25]
References
1. Arneson TJ, Melton LJ, Lewallen DG. Epidemiology of diaphyseal and distal femoral fractures in Rochester, Minnesota, 1965–1984. Clin Orthop. 1988; 234:188–94.
2. Schandelmaier P, Partenheimer A, Koenemann B. Distal femoral fractures and LISS stabilization. Injury. 2001; 32 Suppl 3:SC55–63.
3. Nasr AM, McLeod I, Sabboubeh A, Maffulli N. Conservative or surgical treatment of distal femoral fractures: a retrospective study with minimum five-year follow-up. Acta Orthop Belg. 2000; 66:477–83.
4. Martinet O, Cordey J, Harder Y. The epidemiology of fractures of the distal femur. Injury. 2000; 31 Suppl 3:C62–3.
5. Bezwada HP, Neubauer P, Baker J, Israelite CL, Johanson NA. Periprosthetic supracondylar femur fractures following total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004; 19(4):453–8.
6. Müller ME, Allgöwer M, Schneider R, Willenegger H. Manual of Internal Fixation. 3rd ed. Berlin: Springer; 1992.
7. Zlowodzki M, et al. Operative treatment of distal femoral fractures: review of fixation techniques and outcomes. J Orthop Trauma. 2006; 20(5):366–71.
8. Hartin G, et al. intramedullary nailing versus condylar blade plating for distal femoral fractures: randomized trial. ANZ J Surg. 2006; 76(5):290–4.
9. Kregor PJ, Stannard J, Zlowodzki M. Distal femoral fracture fixation utilizing modern techniques (LISS). Injury. 2001; 32 Suppl 3:SC55–63.
10. Kubiak EN, Fulkerson E, Strauss E, et al. The evolution of locked plates. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88:189–200.
11. Ely L Steinberg, Jacov Elis, Yohai Steinberg, Moshe Salai, Tomer Ben-Tov. A double-plating approach to distal femur fractures. Injury. 2017; 48(10):2260–5.
12. Park K-H, Oh C-W, Park I-H, et al. Additional fixation of medial plate over unstable lateral locked plating for distal femur fractures: a biomechanical study. Injury. 2019; 50:1593–8.
13. Fontenot PB, Diaz M, Stoops K, et al. Supplementation of lateral locked plating for distal femur fractures: a biomechanical study. Orthop Trauma. 2019; 33(12):642–8.
14. Wright DJ, DeSanto D, McGarry M, and Lee TQ, Scolaro J. Supplemental fixation of supracondylar distal femur fractures: biomechanical comparison of dual-plate and plate-nail constructs. J Orthop Trauma. 2020; 34(8):434–440.
15. Bologna MG, Garay M, Shields KJ, et al. Dual plate fixation in comminuted distal femur fractures improves union rates. J Orthop. 2019; 18:76–79.
16. Imam MA, Torieh A, Matthana A. Utilization of dual plating for distal femoral fractures. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2018; 28(1):121–130.
17. Sirisreetreerux N, Shafiq B, and Osgood GM, Hasenboehler EA. Medial knee approach: an anatomical study of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis for distal femoral condylar fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2016; 30(11):e357–e361.
18. Jiamton C, Apivatthakakul T. Safety and feasibility of MIPO on the medial side of the femur: a cadaveric and CT angiographic study. Injury. 2015; 46(11):2170–6.
19. Rollick NC, Gadinsky NE, Klinger CE, et al. Effects of dual plating on distal femoral vascularity. J Trauma. (As cited).
20. Zhibiao B, Shichang G, Zhenming H, Anlin L. Clinical efficacy comparison of lateral versus lateral+medial double-plating fixation of distal femoral fractures. Sci Rep. 2018; 8:4863.
21. Ebraheim NA, Buchanan GS, Liu X, et al. Treatment of distal femur nonunion following initial fixation with a lateral locking plate. Orthop Surg. 2016; 8(3):323–33.
22. Kiyono M, Noda T, Nagano H, et al. Clinical outcomes of locking compression plates for distal femoral fractures: retrospective cohort. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019; 14:384.
23. Çiçek H, Tuhanioğlu Ü, Oğur H, Seyfettinoğlu F, Bozkurt M. Double locking plate fixation for osteoporotic periprosthetic supracondylar femur fractures. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2018; 52:92–96.
24. Firat A, Bilgehan T, Tamer S, Mustafa O. Biomechanical comparison of medial versus lateral sided plating in femoral fractures. Acta Ortop Bras. 2018; 26(4):265–270.
25. Bai Z, Gao S, Hu Z, Lian A. Comparison of clinical efficacy: lateral vs lateral+medial double-plating of distal femoral fractures. Sci Rep. 2018; 8:4863.
| How to Cite this Article: Satia R, Joshi R, Sanghavi S, Dugad M, Sonawane D, Shyam A, Sancheti P. Dual-Column Locking Plate Fixation for AO/OTA 33C3 Distal Femur Fractures: A Hypothesis on Enhanced Mechanical Stability and Healing. Journal Medical Thesis 2024 January-June ; 10(1):50-53. |
Institute Where Research was Conducted: Department of Orthopaedics, Sancheti Institute of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Shivajinagar, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
University Affiliation: MUHS, Nashik, Maharashtra, India.
Year of Acceptance of Thesis: 2022
Download Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML
