Failure of Less-Invasive Stabilization System (LISS) plating for periprosthetic distal femur fractures: Three case reports.

RATIONALE: Less-Invasive Stabilization System (LISS) plate is an internal fixation commonly used for the periprosthetic distal femur fractures. Failure associated with LISS plate has been rarely reported, and the reasons for LISS plate failure are multitudinous. Various advantages have been reported, but failures continue. PATIENT CONCERNS: We present 3 cases illustrating the failure of Less-Invasive Stabilization System (LISS) plating for periprosthetic distal femur fractures. The shaft screws of the LISS plate broke in 2 cases, and the plate placement was incorrect in 1 case. Early weight bearing, obesity, osteoporosis, and lateral collateral ligament injury due to incorrect plate placement constituted the etiologies of LISS plate failure. DIAGNOSIS: Failure of Less-Invasive Stabilization System (LISS) plating for periprosthetic distal femur fractures after Total knee arthroplasty. INTERVENTIONS: Three patients underwent Less-Invasive Stabilization System plates removal with replacement of the total knee arthroplasty revision surgery with rotating hinged knee prosthesis. OUTCOMES: After completing the total knee arthroplasty revision surgery, all patients underwent regular follow-up examinations. Case 2 could walk unaided, without pain, final union was confirmed for both case 1 and case 3. CONCLUSION: Less-Invasive Stabilization System (LISS) plate provides satisfactory results in periprosthetic fractures after Total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The LISS plate has many advantages, but failures continue to occur. The causes for failure were early weight bearing, obesity, osteoporosis, and lateral collateral ligament (LCL) injury due to incorrect plate placement in our series. We recommend that protection or properly delay of weight-bearing, active anti-osteoporosis treatment, and intraoperative fluoroscopy are the effective methods to avoid failure.

Comparison of Fixed-Bearing and Mobile-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have compared fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (FB-UKA) with mobile-bearing UKA (MB-UKA), suggesting that both procedures have good clinical outcomes. However, which treatment is more beneficial for patients is controversial. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the postoperative outcomes, including the revision rate, complications, functional results, range of motion, and femoral-tibial angle, between the 2 procedures. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases starting from August 2017 to May 2018. The publication date of articles was not restricted. Before we submit our contribution, we have re-searched it again. Articles that directly compared the postoperative outcomes of the 2 prosthesis type were included. RESULTS: A total of 15 comparative studies were included in our meta-analysis. The pooled data indicated no differences between the 2 operation modes in terms of revision rates, complications, and knee function, but earlier failure occurred more frequently with the MB design. CONCLUSION: Both the arthroplasty types provided satisfactory clinical results for patients with classic indications. However, MB-UKA tended to fail in early postoperative years whereas fixed-bearing UKA in later postoperative years. Therefore treatment options should be carefully considered for each patient, and surgeons should still use their personal experience when deciding between these options.