Skip to content

Clinicians › Knee

Distal femur fracture

82 citationsUpdated Sep 2026

Overview

Distal femoral fractures present significant management challenges due to variable bone quality and complex fracture patterns [4]. Surgical treatment is indicated to stabilize these injuries, as non-surgical management is a rare option [9]. Internal fixation is recommended for most displaced fractures in adults to achieve anatomic reduction and stable fixation, facilitating early mobilization [4]. While modern solutions display a concerning complication rate, specifically from nonunion and malunion [1], specific techniques offer favorable outcomes. For instance, treatment using a locking plate showed favorable outcomes in osteoporotic distal femoral fractures [6], and distal femoral nailing is a reliable alternative with a low complication rate [8].

Radiographic assessment of union in surgically treated distal femur fractures remains problematic, as the current literature lacks a consistent definition of radiographic fracture union and the appropriate time point for judgement is unclear [2]. Clinical outcomes vary by patient demographic and fracture type. Nearly 1 in 5 patients older than 70 years developed a nonunion after ORIF of an intraarticular distal femur fracture [3]. Conversely, retrograde intramedullary nailing appears to be an appropriate treatment for complete articular distal femur fractures with a potentially decreased rate of nonunion [35]. In elderly patients, double plate fixation is a useful method for adequate exposure, easy manipulation, anatomical reduction, and stable fixation [39].

Minimally invasive approaches and implant choices further define the treatment landscape. Minimally-invasive internal fixation of distal extra-articular fractures with a locking plate associates the principles of internal fixation in a closed fracture site with assembly stability [11]. The long-term results of indirect reduction techniques treated with the condylar plate were good to excellent in 82% of cases [20]. Comparative data indicate that minimally invasive implants, specifically LISS and Distal Femoral Nail, did not differ significantly for epidemiology, fracture type, conversion procedures, infection rate, malalignments, and subjective and objective findings at the 1-year followup [33]. Operative stabilization can be successfully and equally well achieved using either a monoaxial or a polyaxial locking plate [58]. Additionally, a medial approach is a reasonable and safe treatment option for femoral fractures associated with vascular injury [60].

Anatomy & Pathophysiology

Osseous Anatomy

The medial femoral condyle is larger and projects farther posteriorly and distally than the lateral condyle [69]. The medial epicondyle represents the most anterior and distal osseous prominence of the distal femur [69]. Proximal and posterior to the medial epicondyle lies the adductor tubercle, which serves as the insertion site for the adductor magnus muscle [69, 83]. Slightly distal and posterior to the adductor tubercle is the gastrocnemius tubercle [69]. In contrast, the lateral femoral condyle projects farther anteriorly and is wider in the medial-lateral direction than the medial condyle [69, 83]. The broader mean anterior-posterior dimension of the lateral condyle facilitates internal rotation of the distal femur during knee extension [83].

The trochlear groove separates the femoral condyles anteriorly and constitutes the patellofemoral articulation [69]. The lateral trochlear facet resists lateral subluxation of the patella [83]. The sulcus terminalis is a small ridge on the lateral femoral condyle just distal to the intercondylar notch that separates the patellofemoral and tibiofemoral articular surfaces [69]. This transverse ridge extends from the oblique facets of the femoral trochlea and is deeper on the lateral condyle than on the medial condyle [83]. The intercondylar notch is of variable width and serves as the attachment site for the cruciate ligaments [69]. The medial femoral condyle possesses a large, convex articular surface, while the lateral femoral condyle also has a convex articular surface [83].

Ligamentous Anatomy

The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) travels from the medial border of the lateral femoral condyle to its insertion site anterolateral to the medial tibial spine [40]. It prevents anterior translation and rotation of the tibia on the femur [40]. The ACL is an intra-articular ligament that is technically extrasynovial, surrounded by synovium [81]. Its composition is 90% type I collagen and 10% type III collagen [69]. The mean length of the ACL is 33 mm with a mean midsubstance width of 11 mm [69], though variable lengths range from 22 to 41 mm and widths from 7 to 12 mm, consistently narrowest in the midsubstance [81]. The femoral attachment is a semicircular area 20 mm long and 10 mm wide on the posteromedial aspect of the lateral femoral condyle, posterior to the lateral intercondylar ridge [69, 81]. The tibial attachment is a broad, irregular, oval-shaped area 30 mm long and 10 mm wide, located slightly medial and anterior to the midline between the tibial spinous processes [69]. This tibial footprint is 120% larger than the femoral insertion [81]. The center of the ACL femoral footprint is located at 43% of the distance from the proximal to distal articular cartilage margin [73]. The posterior edge of the ACL is 2.5 mm from the posterior articular cartilage border, with direct insertion in a narrow area extending from the intercondylar ridge to a second osseous ridge 4 mm posterior [73].

The ACL consists of two bundles with distinct biomechanical roles. The anteromedial bundle is tight in knee flexion, with its center at 29.5% of the proximal to distal distance of the lateral femoral intercondylar notch [73, 83]. It increases anterior tibial translation at 60° and 90° of knee flexion [83]. The posterolateral bundle is tight in knee extension, with its center at 50% of the proximal to distal distance of the lateral femoral intercondylar notch [73, 83]. This bundle prevents the pivot-shift phenomenon and stabilizes against anterior translation with 30° of knee flexion [83]. The ACL is typically subjected to peak loads of 170 N during walking and up to 500 N with running [84]. Its ultimate strength in young patients is approximately 1750 N, and it fails by serial tearing at 10% to 15% elongation [84].

The posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) runs from the lateral aspect of the medial femoral condyle to the posterior aspect of the tibia, just below the joint line [40]. It prevents posterior subluxation of the tibia on the femur [40]. The PCL has a mean length of 38 mm and a mean width of 13 mm [83]. Its femoral attachment is broad and crescent-shaped on the anterolateral medial femoral condyle, with a mean length of 30 mm and mean width of 5 mm [83]. The PCL inserts on the anteromedial wall of the intercondylar notch [83]. The tibial insertion onto the posterior central sulcus is 10 to 15 mm distal to the joint line of the knee [83]. Sectioning the PCL increases contact pressures in the medial compartment and the patellofemoral joint [84].

The medial collateral ligament (MCL) has superficial and deep portions that stabilize the knee against valgus stresses [40]. It originates on the femoral sulcus approximately 3.2 cm proximal and 4.8 cm posterior to the articular surface of the femur at the knee [83]. The lateral collateral ligament runs from the lateral femoral condyle to the head of the fibula and is the main stabilizer against varus stress [40]. It is part of the posterolateral complex that also resists external rotation [40]. The popliteofibular ligament is present in 90% of knees and runs from the tendon of the popliteus muscle to the styloid on the posterior fibular head [40].

The posteromedial corner of the knee comprises five major components: the posterior oblique ligament, the semimembranosus tendon and its expansions, the oblique popliteal ligament, the posteromedial joint capsule, and the posterior horn of the medial meniscus [78]. The posterior oblique ligament attaches proximally to the adductor tubercle of the femur and distally to the tibia and posterior aspect of the capsule [78]. Its central portion is the thickest and probably the most important arm, originating in the region of the adductor tubercle [78]. The posteromedial capsule and posterior oblique ligament become progressively relaxed as the knee flexes [78]. With active contraction of the semimembranosus muscle, each of the three arms of the posterior oblique ligament is tense [78]. The central arm of the posterior oblique ligament must be tightened in surgical repair or reconstruction for passive stability to be attained [78].

Meniscal Anatomy

The menisci are C-shaped fibrocartilaginous disks that provide shock absorption, increase congruency between joint surfaces, enhance joint stability, and aid in the distribution of synovial fluid [40]. They provide a concave surface with which the convex femoral condyles can articulate [40]. The medial meniscus is firmly attached to the joint capsule along its entire peripheral edge [40]. It has a semicircular shape covering approximately 50% to 60% of the medial tibial plateau in adulthood, with the posterior horn averaging 11 mm in the anterior-posterior dimension [79]. The medial meniscus has less mobility than the lateral meniscus and is more susceptible to tearing when trapped between the femoral condyle and tibial plateau [40].

The lateral meniscus is larger than the medial meniscus and carries a greater share of the lateral compartment pressure [40]. It has a more circular C-shape with symmetric sizes of the anterior and posterior horns [79]. The lateral meniscus is attached to the anterior and posterior capsule, but there is a region posterolaterally where it is not firmly attached [40]. This less continuous attachment allows for greater meniscal mobility, with mean lateral meniscus excursion of 11.2 mm versus a mean medial meniscus excursion of 5.1 mm from knee extension to flexion [79]. The popliteomeniscal fascicles extend from the lateral meniscus to the posterior capsule to create the popliteal hiatus [79]. Meniscofemoral ligaments are variably present structures connecting the posterior horn of the lateral meniscus to the medial femoral condyle; the ligament of Humphrey crosses anterior to the PCL, while the ligament of Wrisberg crosses posteriorly [79].

Menisci bear one-third to one-half body weight, and their removal increases contact stresses up to four times the load transfer to bone [84]. They are divided into three zones based on vasculature and extracellular matrix composition: white-white, red-white, and red-red [79]. The inner one-third is avascular (white-white zone), the middle zone has limited vasculature (red-white zone), and the back one-third is the most vascularized (red-red zone) with access to blood supply through vessels arising from the geniculate arteries [79].

Vascular and Neural Anatomy

The blood supply to the knee is formed from an anastomosis around the knee derived from the descending geniculate artery, medial and lateral superior geniculate arteries, medial and lateral inferior geniculate arteries, middle geniculate artery, and anterior tibial recurrent arteries [69]. The middle geniculate artery supplies both the anterior and posterior cruciate ligaments [69]. The inferior geniculate arteries pass deep to their respective collateral ligaments [69]. The popliteus artery travels through the adductor hiatus, where it is relatively immobile, and distally through the fibrous arch deep to the soleus muscle [89].

The knee is innervated by branches of the femoral nerve (L2, L3, L4), obturator nerve (L2, L3, L4), and sciatic nerve (L4, L5, S1, S2) [69]. The largest nerve providing innervation of the intra-articular knee is the posterior articular branch of the tibial nerve [69]. This branch supplies the infrapatellar fat pad, the synovial covering over the cruciate ligaments, and the periphery of the meniscus [69]. Nerves to the cruciate ligaments contain vasomotor and pain fibers as well as mechanoreceptors that may be involved in proprioception [69]. The infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve arises proximal to the knee joint medially and crosses distal to the patella to innervate the skin over the region of the anterior knee and proximal tibia [69]. The common peroneal nerve travels along the posterior edge of the biceps femoris and continues distally around the fibular neck [89]. The tibial nerve, after branching from the sciatic nerve, courses distally through the center of the popliteus fossa [89].

Pathophysiology and Biomechanics

Distal femur fractures represent a prevalence of 0.5% of all fractures, with an overall incidence of 8.7/100,000/year [7]. After the age of 60 years, there is a rapid increase in incidence in both genders, with a large female predominance [7]. The mean age at fracture is 62.2 years, with a mean age of 44.0 years for males and 71.6 years for females [7]. The gender distribution is 33.4% males and 66.6% females [7]. Management remains challenging due to bone quality and fracture patterns [4]. Evaluation and management require an understanding of the injury mechanism, potential associated injuries, and radiographic and clinical goals [42]. Surgical management requires a clear understanding of the unique anatomy of the distal femur to achieve an anatomic reduction [42].

Biomechanical considerations influence fixation strategies. Screw fixation for Hoffa fractures provides enough biomechanical stability until the fracture heals, but arthrosis is a frequent long-term complication which worsens functional results [68]. For Letenneur type I Hoffa fractures, the addition of a plate significantly enhanced fixation stability, with the posterior plate demonstrating superior biomechanical performance compared with the lateral plate [144]. The combination of a 5-hole lateral plate and a medial T-shaped plate demonstrated significant biomechanical advantage for distal femoral AO/OTA 33C1 fractures compared to other fixation methods [145]. Four-screw distal locking provides the highest axial stability and nearly comparable torsional stability to that of the angular stable plate for Type-C distal femoral fractures in osteoporotic bone [36]. A distal locking plate for the treatment of supracondylar fractures leads to a higher required fracture force [159].

In the context of adjacent injuries and implants, the ROM of hip and knee returns to normal over time following intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures, regardless of the nailing method used [27]. Implantation of a constrained knee prosthesis that is not loosened does not increase the risk for an interprosthetic fracture [159]. Rigid implants may alter mechanical stresses seen by the distal femoral physis, leading to valgus deformity after rigid intramedullary nailing of adolescent femoral shaft fractures [183].

Classification

AO/OTA: AO/OTA type A fractures primarily involve elderly, relatively dependent female subjects [14]. C-type distal femur fractures present with four main fracture patterns, most of which contain a central sagittal intercondylar split with a high proportion of medial or lateral coronal fracture lines [23].

Busch-Hoffa: Treatment of coronal plane distal femur fractures, known as Busch-Hoffa fractures, should be approached using a modified Letenneur classification to guide treatment, approach, and fixation [116].

Periprosthetic: A simple classification system connecting fracture patterns to treatment algorithms can assist surgeons in obtaining optimal clinical results for periprosthetic fractures of the knee [99].

Non-Union Scoring System (NUSS): The Non-Union Scoring System (NUSS) is an appropriate scoring system to classify and stratify non-unions and to enable the surgeon to choose the correct treatment [114].

Other Considerations: The current literature evaluating surgically treated distal femur fractures lacks a consistent definition of radiographic fracture union, and the appropriate time point to make this judgement is unclear [2].

Clinical Presentation

Distal femur fractures occur at an overall incidence of 8.7/100,000/year [7]. The mean age at fracture is 62.2 years [7], with a mean age of 44.0 years for males and 71.6 years for females [7]. Incidence rises rapidly after the age of 60 years in both genders, accompanied by a considerable female predominance in this demographic [7]. AO/OTA type A distal femoral fractures mainly involve elderly, relatively dependent female subjects [14].

C-type distal femur fractures present with four main fracture patterns [23]. Most of these patterns contain a central sagittal intercondylar split [23], and the fracture configurations have a high proportion of medial or lateral coronal fracture lines [23]. Distal femoral periprosthetic fractures are associated with high morbidity and mortality [17].

Geriatric patients with distal femur fractures experience a high rate of postoperative medical complications [10] and a one-year mortality rate of 25% [10]. The detrimental effect of the acute fracture and its complications on quality of life persists up to 12 months after the injury [28]. Patient-reported outcomes for lower limb long bone shaft fractures do not return to normal at one year despite modern treatment [15].

Regarding functional recovery, the range of motion of the hip and knee returns to normal over time regardless of the nailing method used [27]. Distal femur fractures treated with retrograde intramedullary nails or lateral locked plates showed no notable differences in radiographic healing [13] or in qualitative clinical outcomes [13].

Investigations

Plain radiography: Plain radiographs serve as the appropriate initial imaging studies for most knee conditions, allowing for the assessment of traumatic injury [87]. Non-weight-bearing radiographs may identify acute distal femur injury without the risk of fracture displacement [87]. Surveillance radiographs obtained in the first 12 weeks after tibial and femoral intramedullary fixation do not result in changes in management [32].

CT: Computed tomography imaging in the axial, sagittal, and coronal planes may help visualize fracture lines and displacement in the knee [87]. Three-dimensional CT reconstructions may help with preoperative planning for complex intra-articular fractures [87].

MRI: Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) at 26 weeks follow-up predicts non-union consolidation with a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 87% [186].

Other Considerations: The current literature evaluating surgically treated distal femur fractures lacks a consistent definition of radiographic fracture union [2]. Inter-observer agreement for the assessment of union on radiographs of internally fixed femoral fractures was 68% [54]. The ability of observers to correctly chronologically rank radiographs of internally fixed femoral fractures was 62% [54]. In internally fixed femoral fractures, callus formation was related to the ability of observers to agree on union, with a mean callus formation of 17 mm in the united group and 2.3 mm in the un-united group [54]. Distal femur intra-articular coronal plane fractures can yield large anterior and posterior condylar fracture fragments of either the medial condyle, lateral condyle, or both condyles [180].

Treatment

Non-Operative

The provided evidence does not support specific conservative management protocols such as weight loss, physical therapy regimens, NSAIDs, or injections for distal femur fractures.

Operative

Indications: Surgical management of distal femur fractures requires a clear understanding of the unique anatomy of the distal femur and how implants can be used in a biologic-preserving manner to achieve anatomic reduction and enable fracture healing [42]. Clinicians should take into account risk factors when managing patients with long bone fractures, particularly the femur, in order to minimise the risk of non-union [5]. Bilateral closed femoral shaft fractures should be treated with caution due to the increased risk of complications [19]. Minimally invasive treatment is feasible for most patients with old femoral fractures of the trochanter and femoral shaft [12].

Surgical Approach / Technique: Internal fixation of fractures of the femoral shaft by two slotted plates is advocated for the treatment of fractures in which internal fixation is indicated for malposition, non-union, or malunion, or in which open reduction is the treatment of choice [137]. Intraoperative use of interfragmentary positional screws to sustain the reduced interfragmentary gap in simple distal femur fractures may achieve a more rapid union by reducing fracture gap [30]. For periprosthetic femoral fractures around well-fixed total hip and knee implants, a minimum of 10 cortices of fixation above and below the fracture is advocated, and bone grafting is recommended if the soft tissue envelope is violated [125]. Treating neglected femoral diaphyseal fractures with a two-stage surgery (external fixator followed by a plate) is a satisfactory therapy showing reliable bony union [49].

Implant Selection: Retrograde intramedullary nailing is a reliable alternative in distal femoral fracture treatment with a low complication rate [8]. Plating has a definite place in the management of those fractures of the shaft of the femur that are unsuitable for medullary nailing [16]. Intramedullary nailing may be a superior treatment compared with anatomical locking plates for fractures of the distal femur [55]. In a multicenter randomized trial of adult patients with an AO/OTA type 33A or 33C distal femoral fracture, similar clinical and radiographic healing outcomes were observed in far cortical locking and standard fixation groups [57]. Double plate fixation for comminuted fractures of the distal femur can improve knee mobility at 6 months postoperatively, reduce overall postoperative complications, and decrease the incidence of malunion healing [37]. The Ilizarov fixator is an effective treatment modality for open comminuted distal femur fractures with high union rate, adequate alignment, and satisfactory functional outcomes [106]. The use of the LISS (less invasive stabilization system) in combination with autogenous bone grafting adequately addresses nonunion fixation of the distal femur in elderly patients, achieving bone healing and preservation of knee function even in severe osteoporosis with substantial bone defects [119]. ORIF and distal femoral replacement (DFR) for the treatment of periprosthetic distal femur fractures have similar surgical complication and reoperation profiles [34].

Complications and Nonunion Management: Geriatric patients with distal femur fractures have a high rate of one-year mortality (25%) and postoperative medical complications [10]. Despite modern treatment, the patient-reported outcomes of lower limb long bone shaft fractures do not return to normal at one year [15]. Delayed unions and non-unions of fractures are associated with significant patient morbidity [38]. The failure rate of treatment of nonunions of the distal femur with internal fixation and autologous bone grafting remains high at 20% to 30% [47]. A surgical algorithm for managing recalcitrant distal femur nonunions takes into account adequacy of distal femoral bone stock, extent of the medial void, alignment of the fracture, and stability of the fixation [43]. Complete clinical and radiological union was achieved in all cases of failed femoral nailing treated with augmentation plating in a mean duration of 5.2 months [25]. Various techniques for managing aseptic diaphyseal long bone non-unions that do not require removal of the existing nail exist, with augmentation plating showing high success rates while evidence for ultrasound and electrostimulation remains inconclusive or weak [107]. The results demonstrated satisfactory healing for the treatment of diaphyseal nonunions of the femur and tibia using an expandable nailing system [111]. In case of non-union, its treatment should consider preservation of the blood supply at the fracture site [130].

Rehabilitation and Assessment: Rehabilitation for infra-isthmal femoral fractures treated with intramedullary nailing starts on the second postoperative day with quadriceps setting and continuous passive motion of the hip and knee joints [45]. After discharge, patients are encouraged to perform straight leg-raising exercise and active flexion of the hips and knees from a tolerable range of motion, followed by a gradual increase similar to the range in the unaffected limb [45]. Partial weight bearing with crutches is started as soon as pain becomes tolerable, followed by full weight bearing [45]. Routine follow-up radiographs are obtained every 6-8 weeks until solid continuous callus formation is observed [45]. Callus formation on 3/4 cortices and radiographic evidence of fracture line fading are considered signs of fracture union [45]. Frontal and sagittal plane angulations are assessed on anteroposterior and lateral plain radiographs obtained immediately after surgery and at final follow-up visits [45]. Functional result is assessed using the Knee Society scoring system [45]. The current literature evaluating surgically treated distal femur fractures lacks consistent definition of radiographic fracture union, and the appropriate time point to make this judgement is unclear [2].

Complications

Nonunion and Malunion

Nonunion: The risk of nonunion is elevated in specific patient populations and fracture types. Nearly 1 in 5 patients older than 70 years developed a nonunion after open reduction internal fixation of an intraarticular distal femur fracture [3]. In a series of 55 patients with periprosthetic distal femur fractures treated with precontoured lateral locking plates, 18% developed nonunion [18].

Malunion: Double plate fixation for comminuted fractures of the distal femur can decrease the incidence of malunion healing [37].

Infection and Systemic Complications

Medical Complications: Geriatric patients with distal femur fractures have a high rate of postoperative medical complications [10].

Thromboembolism: Bilateral closed femoral shaft fractures carry an increased risk of complications due to the potential for fat and pulmonary embolism [19]. Multiple intramedullary nailing procedures for bilateral femur fractures may comprise a risk factor for respiratory complications [123].

Periprosthetic and Specific Fracture Types

Periprosthetic Fracture: Distal femoral periprosthetic fractures have a high morbidity and mortality [17]. The overall complication rate for periprosthetic distal femur fractures treated with precontoured lateral locking plates was 24% [18].

Interprosthetic Fracture: Interprosthetic femoral fracture outcomes may be worse due to the fragile nature of the population and surgeons not following appropriate technical rules for fracture fixation [148].

Functional Outcomes and Quality of Life

Functional Outcomes: Despite modern treatment, patient-reported outcomes of lower limb long bone shaft fractures do not return to normal at one year [15]. The detrimental effect of complications on a patient's quality of life persists up to 12 months after the injury, even if the acute fracture and complications have resolved clinically [28].

Mortality

Mortality: Geriatric patients with distal femur fractures have a high rate of one-year mortality, reported at 25% [10].

Recovery

Union and Nonunion: Clinicians must account for risk factors when managing long bone fractures, particularly the femur and tibia, to minimise the risk of non-union [5]. Delayed unions and non-unions remain a significant source of patient morbidity [38]. In a cohort of 485 patients with tibial or femoral shaft fractures, delayed union or nonunion occurred in 60 patients (12.4%) [176]. For periprosthetic distal femur fractures treated with precontoured lateral locking plates, 18% of 55 patients developed nonunion, with an overall complication rate of 24% [18]. At a mean of 4 years after injury, fracture-related infection and nonunion became chronic conditions in nearly a quarter of participants who experienced these complications, regardless of reintervention [65].

Functional Outcomes and Quality of Life: The detrimental effect on a patient's quality of life persists up to 12 months after the injury, even after the acute fracture and complications have resolved clinically [28]. Range of motion for the hip and knee returns to normal over time, regardless of the nailing method used [27]. In distal femur fractures treated with ORIF using a distal femur locking plate, closed fracture status and regular follow-up were determining factors for better functional outcomes [48]. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide insight into the natural history of the patient experience after tibial fracture but have limited utility as a measure of structural bone healing [56].

Complications and Mortality: Geriatric patients with distal femur fractures face a high rate of one-year mortality (25%) and postoperative medical complications [10].

Healing Time and Radiographic Assessment: Surveillance radiographs in the first 12 weeks after tibial and femoral intramedullary fixation do not result in changes in management [32]. The mean time for a tibial fracture to heal is 18 weeks, with 13.8% of patients requiring longer than 25 weeks to achieve healing [157]. Osteoporosis influences the late period of fracture healing in femoral shaft fractures treated with intramedullary nailing [63]. For femoral shaft non-unions treated with autologous concentrated bone-marrow grafting, radiographic evidence of fracture union was observed at an average of 4.75±1.75 months (range 3 to 8 months) [67]. Complete clinical and radiological union was achieved in all cases in a mean duration of 5.2 months for failed femoral nailing treated with augmentation plating [25]. For Grade II and Grade III open diaphyseal femoral and tibial fractures treated with intramedullary nailing, all fractures healed in an average of 4.5 months, except for 3 cases [66].

Treatment-Specific Recovery Outcomes: Distal femur fractures treated with retrograde intramedullary nails or lateral locked plates showed no notable differences in revision surgery rates, radiographic healing, or qualitative clinical outcomes [13]. All fractures progressed to clinical and radiological union at final follow-up for distal femoral non-implant related and periprosthetic fractures treated with a Polyax Locked Plating System [29]. The DFN is a reliable alternative in distal femoral fracture treatment with a low complication rate [8].

Key Evidence

  • [L5] Despite rapid adoption, modern solutions for distal femur fractures display a concerning complication rate, specifically from nonunion and malunion. [1] (10.5435/jaaos-d-17-00706)
  • [L4] The current literature evaluating surgically treated distal femur fractures lacks consistent definition of radiographic fracture union, and the appropriate time point to make this judgement is unclear. [2] (10.2106/jbjs.rvw.23.00223)
  • [L3] Nearly 1 in 5 patients older than 70 years developed a nonunion after ORIF of an intraarticular distal femur fracture. [3] (10.1016/j.arth.2016.06.006)
  • [L1] Clinicians should take in to account these findings when managing patients with long bone fractures, particularly the femur and tibia in order to minimise the risk of non-union. [5] (10.1016/s0020-1383(15)30049-8)
  • [L4] Treatment using a locking plate showed favorable outcomes in osteoporotic distal femoral fractures. [6] (10.1016/j.otsr.2017.08.008)
  • [L3] [7] (10.1007/s00264-017-3665-1)
  • [L4] Our results suggest that the DFN is a reliable alternative in distal femoral fracture treatment with a low complication rate. [8] (10.1016/s0020-1383(03)00191-8)
  • [L4] Surgical treatment is indicated to stabilize distal femur fractures as non-surgical treatment is a rare option. [9] (10.1016/j.otsr.2012.10.014)
  • [L3] The study confirms a high rate of one-year mortality (25%) and postoperative medical complications in geriatric patients with distal femur fractures. [10] (10.1016/j.injury.2016.05.024)
  • [L4] Minimally-invasive internal fixation of distal extra-articular fractures of the femur with a locking plate is an elegant but difficult technique that associates the principles of internal fixation in a closed fracture site with assembly stability. [11] (10.1016/j.otsr.2010.11.004)
  • [L4] Minimally invasive treatment is feasible for most patients with old femoral fractures of the trochanter and femoral shaft. [12] (10.1016/j.injury.2019.03.002)
  • [L3] Distal femur fractures treated with retrograde intramedullary nails or lateral locked plates showed no notable differences in revision surgery rates, radiographic healing, or qualitative clinical outcomes. [13] (10.5435/jaaos-d-25-00575)
  • [L4] Distal femoral fracture shows highly variable epidemiology, with AO/OTA type A fractures mainly involving elderly, relatively dependent female subjects. [14] (10.1016/j.otsr.2014.06.004)
  • [L3] Despite modern treatment, the patient-reported outcomes of lower limb long bone shaft fractures do not return to normal at one year. [15] (10.1016/j.injury.2014.06.025)
  • [L4] Plating has a definite place in the management of those fractures of the shaft of the femur that are unsuitable for medullary nailing. [16] (10.1016/0020-1383(85)90078-6)
  • [L3] Distal femoral periprosthetic fractures have a high morbidity and mortality. [17] (10.1016/j.arth.2016.12.013)
  • [L4] In this series of 55 patients with periprosthetic distal femur fractures treated with precontoured lateral locking plates, 18% developed nonunion and the overall complication rate was 24%. [18] (10.1016/j.injury.2020.05.009)
  • [L5] Bilateral closed femoral shaft fractures should be treated with caution due to the increased risk of complications. [19] (10.1016/s0020-1383(15)30041-3)
  • [L4] The long-term results of indirect reduction techniques of distal femoral fractures treated with the condylar plate were good to excellent in 82% of cases. [20] (10.1016/j.injury.2008.08.046)
  • [L4] C-type distal femur fractures can present with four main fracture patterns, most containing a central sagittal intercondylar split with a high proportion of medial or lateral coronal fracture lines. [23] (10.5435/jaaos-d-23-01254)
  • [L4] Complete clinical and radiological union was achieved in all cases in a mean duration of 5.2 months. [25] (10.1016/s0020-1383(17)30490-4)
  • [L3] The ROM of hip and knee returns to normal over time, regardless of the nailing method used. [27] (10.1016/j.injury.2012.03.011)
  • [L2] While the acute fracture and complications may have resolved clinically, the detrimental effect on a patient's quality of life persists up to 12 months after the injury. [28] (10.1302/0301-620x.100b9.bjj-2017-1488.r1)
  • [L4] All fractures progressed to clinical and radiological union at final follow-up. [29] (10.1016/j.injury.2015.08.008)
  • [L3] In a distal femur fracture with a simple fracture pattern, using positional screws to sustain the reduced interfragmentary gap may achieve a more rapid union by reducing fracture gap. [30] (10.1016/j.injury.2016.10.034)
  • [L4] Surveillance radiographs in the first 12 weeks after tibial and femoral intramedullary fixation do not result in changes in management. [32] (10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-23-00069)
  • [L3] The two minimally invasive implants used were good in terms of technique and outcome for treatment of distal femoral fractures and did not differ significantly for epidemiology, fracture type, conversion procedures, infection rate, malalignments, and subjective and objective findings at the 1-year followup. [33] (10.1097/01.blo.0000141935.86481.ba)
  • [L1] ORIF and DFR for the treatment of periprosthetic distal femur fractures have similar surgical complication and reoperation profiles. [34] (10.1016/j.arth.2023.01.044)
  • [L3] While prospective data is required, rIMN does appear to be an appropriate treatment for complete articular distal femur fractures with a potentially decreased rate of nonunion. [35] (10.1016/j.injury.2021.11.037)
  • [L5] Four-screw distal locking provides the highest axial stability and nearly comparable torsional stability to that of the angular stable plate, demonstrating the best combined biomechanical stability. [36] (10.2106/jbjs.j.01142)
  • [L1] Double plate fixation for comminuted fractures of the distal femur can improve knee mobility at 6 months postoperatively, reduce overall postoperative complications, and decrease the incidence of malunion healing. [37] (10.1530/eor-23-0160)
  • [L5] Delayed unions and non-unions of fractures continue to be of great interest and are associated with significant patient morbidity. [38] (10.1016/j.injury.2017.04.019)
  • [L4] In elderly patients, double plate fixation for distal femoral fractures is an useful method for several advantages such as adequate exposure, easy manipulation, anatomical reduction and stable fixation. [39] (10.1186/s13018-022-02944-6)
  • [L3] [43] (10.1007/s00402-019-03172-0)
  • [L3] [45] (10.1007/s00402-018-2961-6)
  • [L4] The failure rate of treatment of nonunions of the distal femur with internal fixation and autologous bone grafting remains high at 20% to 30%. [47] (10.2106/jbjs.23.00985)
  • [L3] Closed fracture and regular follow up were determining factors for better functional outcomes. [48] (10.1186/s13018-024-05054-7)
  • [L4] Treating neglected femoral diaphyseal fractures with a two-stage surgery is a satisfactory therapy showing reliable bony union. [49] (10.1016/j.injury.2013.03.019)
  • [L5] Common indications for dual-implant fixation include nonunion treatment and comminuted fractures with bone loss. [52] (10.5435/jaaos-d-24-01222)
  • [L4] [54] (10.1016/s0020-1383(03)00262-6)
  • [L3] IMN may be a superior treatment compared with anatomical locking plates for fractures of the distal femur. [55] (10.1302/0301-620x.98b6.36826)
  • [L4] PROMs provide insight into the natural history of the patient experience after tibial fracture but have limited utility as a measure of structural bone healing. [56] (10.2106/jbjs.18.01139)
  • [L1] In this multicenter randomized trial of adult patients with an AO/OTA type 33A or 33C distal femoral fracture, similar clinical and radiographic healing outcomes were observed in the FCL and standard fixation groups. [57] (10.2106/jbjs.23.01390)
  • [L5] Operative stabilization of distal femur fractures can be successfully and equally well achieved using either a monoaxial or a polyaxial locking plate. [58] (10.1186/1471-2474-15-369)
  • [L4] This technique is a reasonable and safe treatment option for femoral fractures associated with vascular injury. [60] (10.1016/j.injury.2020.03.044)
  • [L3] Osteoporosis influences the late period of fracture healing in femoral shaft fractures treated with intramedullary nailing. [63] (10.1016/j.injury.2008.10.035)
  • [L4] At a mean of 4 years after injury, fracture-related infection and nonunion became chronic conditions in nearly a quarter of the participants who experienced these complications, regardless of reintervention. [65] (10.2106/jbjs.22.00016)
  • [L4] All fractures healed in average of 4.5 months, except 3 cases. [66] (10.1016/s0020-1383(13)70062-7)
  • [L4] Radiographic evidence of fracture union was observed at an average of 4.75±1.75 months (range 3 to 8 months). [67] (10.1016/s0020-1383(14)70013-0)
  • [L4] Screw fixation was seen to provide enough biomechanical stability until the fracture healed, but arthrosis is a frequent long-term complication which worsens the functional results. [68] (10.1016/j.injury.2017.11.026)
  • [L4] A simple classification system connecting fracture patterns to treatment algorithms can assist surgeons in obtaining optimal clinical results. [99] (10.1016/j.arth.2006.12.054)
  • [L4] Ilizarov fixator was an effective treatment modality of open comminuted distal femur fractures with high union rate, adequate alignment and satisfactory functional outcomes. [106] (10.1016/j.injury.2019.05.011)
  • [Paper] The article reviews various techniques proposed for managing aseptic diaphyseal long bone non-unions that do not require removal of the existing nail, noting that while some methods like augmentation plating show high success rates, evidence for others such as ultrasound and electrostimulation remains inconclusive or weak. [107] (10.1016/j.injury.2017.04.022)
  • [L4] The results demonstrated satisfactory healing for the treatment of diaphyseal nonunions of the femur and tibia. [111] (10.1016/j.injury.2008.07.029)
  • [L4] This indicates that NUSS could be an appropriate scoring system to classify and stratify non-unions and to enable the surgeon to choose the correct treatment. [114] (10.1016/j.injury.2014.10.030)
  • [L4] Treatment of coronal plane distal femur fractures (Busch-Hoffa fractures) should be approached in a systematic manner using a proposed algorithmic treatment protocol to guide treatment, approach, and fixation based on the modified Letenneur classification. [116] (10.1016/j.injury.2018.06.008)
  • [L4] The use of the LISS in combination with autogenous bone grafting adequately addresses nonunion fixation of the distal femur in elderly patients, achieving bone healing and preservation of knee function even in severe osteoporosis with substantial bone defects. [119] (10.1007/s00402-006-0102-0)
  • [L5] [123] (10.1097/01.blo.0000144862.18816.83)
  • [L4] The authors advocate a minimum of 10 cortices of fixation above and below the fracture and recommend bone grafting if the soft tissue envelope is violated. [125] (10.1016/j.arth.2010.07.002)
  • [L5] In case of non-union, its treatment should consider preservation of the blood supply at the fracture site. [130] (10.1016/s0020-1383(15)30044-9)
  • [L5] While the addition of a plate significantly enhanced fixation stability, the posterior plate demonstrated superior biomechanical performance compared with the lateral plate. [144] (10.1186/s12891-026-09748-3)
  • [L5] The combination of a 5-hole lateral plate and a medial T-shaped plate demonstrated significant biomechanical advantage compared to the other five groups. [145] (10.1186/s12891-025-08996-z)
  • [L4] These worse results may be explained by the very fragile nature of the studied population and surgeons not following appropriate technical rules for fracture fixation. [148] (10.1016/j.otsr.2018.07.026)
  • [Paper] The mean time for a tibial fracture to heal is 18 weeks, with 13.8% of patients requiring longer than 25 weeks to achieve healing. [157] (10.1016/j.otsr.2019.10.010)
  • [L5] A distal locking plate for the treatment of supracondylar fractures leads to a higher required fracture force, and implantation of a constrained knee prosthesis that is not loosened does not increase the risk for a fracture. [159] (10.1007/s00264-012-1697-0)
  • [L3] Delayed union/nonunion occurred in 60/485 patients (12.4%). [176] (10.1186/s12891-026-10074-x)
  • [L4] Distal femur intra-articular coronal plane fractures can yield large anterior and posterior condylar fracture fragments of either the medial condyle, lateral condyle, or both condyles. [180] (10.1016/j.injury.2020.11.061)
  • [L5] The authors hypothesize that rigid implants may alter mechanical stresses seen by the distal femoral physis, leading to this complication. [183] (10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-22-00220)
  • [L2] DCE-MRI at 26 weeks follow-up predicts non-union consolidation with a sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 87%. [186] (10.1016/j.injury.2017.01.021)

See Also

References

[1] Modern Implant Options for the Treatment of Distal Femur Fractures. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2019. DOI: 10.5435/jaaos-d-17-00706

[2] Radiographic Union Assessment in Surgically Treated Distal Femur Fractures. JBJS Reviews. 2024. DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.rvw.23.00223

[3] Open Reduction vs Distal Femoral Replacement Arthroplasty for Comminuted Distal Femur Fractures in the Patients 70 Years and Older. The Journal of Arthroplasty. 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.06.006

[4] Distal Femur Fractures. 2019.

[5] Risk factors for long bone fracture non-union: a stratification approach based on the level of the existing scientific evidence. Injury. 2015. DOI: 10.1016/s0020-1383(15)30049-8

[6] Factors affecting peri-implant fracture following locking plate for osteoporotic distal femur fractures. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2017.08.008

[7] Population-based epidemiology and incidence of distal femur fractures. International Orthopaedics. 2017. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-017-3665-1

[8] Retrograde intramedullary nailing in distal femoral fractures—results in a series of 46 consecutive operations. Injury. 2004. DOI: 10.1016/s0020-1383(03)00191-8

[9] Distal femur fractures. Surgical techniques and a review of the literature. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 2013. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2012.10.014

[10] Geriatric distal femur fracture: Are we underestimating the rate of local and systemic complications?. Injury. 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2016.05.024

[11] Minimally-invasive internal fixation of extra-articular distal femur fractures using a locking plate: Tricks of the trade. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 2011. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2010.11.004

[12] Minimally invasive treatment of old femoral fractures in adults. Injury. 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2019.03.002

[13] Nail Versus Plate for Distal Femur Fracture: A Propensity-matched Analysis. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2025. DOI: 10.5435/jaaos-d-25-00575

[14] Epidemiology of distal femur fractures in France in 2011–12. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2014.06.004

[15] Health outcomes of delayed union and nonunion of femoral and tibial shaft fractures. Injury. 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2014.06.025

[16] The place of the dynamic compression plate in femoral shaft fractures. Injury. 1985. DOI: 10.1016/0020-1383(85)90078-6

[17] Predictors of Functional Recovery Following Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures. The Journal of Arthroplasty. 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.12.013

[18] Complication Rates after Lateral Plate Fixation of Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures: A Multicenter Study. Injury. 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2020.05.009

[19] Bilateral femoral shaft fractures complicated by fat and pulmonary embolism: a case report. Injury. 2015. DOI: 10.1016/s0020-1383(15)30041-3

[20] The condylar plate for treatment of distal femoral fractures: A long-term follow-up study. Injury. 2009. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2008.08.046

[23] Fracture Lines and Patterns in Intra-articular Distal Femur Fractures. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2024. DOI: 10.5435/jaaos-d-23-01254

[25] Augmentation plating in management of failed femoral nailing. Injury. 2017. DOI: 10.1016/s0020-1383(17)30490-4

[27] Long-term functional outcome following intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures. Injury. 2012. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2012.03.011

[28] Deficits in preference-based health-related quality of life after complications associated with tibial fracture. The Bone & Joint Journal. 2018. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.100b9.bjj-2017-1488.r1

[29] The outcome of Polyax Locked Plating System for fixation distal femoral non-implant related and periprosthetic fractures. Injury. 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.08.008

[30] The use of interfragmentary positional screw in minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis for simple distal femur fractures in elderly patients: A retrospective, single-centre pilot study. Injury. 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2016.10.034

[32] Efficacy of Postoperative Radiographs After Intramedullary Nailing of the Tibia and Femur: When Are They Useful?. JAAOS: Global Research and Reviews. 2023. DOI: 10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-23-00069

[33] Femur???LISS and Distal Femoral Nail for Fixation of Distal Femoral Fractures. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 2004. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000141935.86481.ba

[34] Distal Femoral Replacement versus Operative Fixation for Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Arthroplasty. 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2023.01.044

[35] Is retrograde nailing superior to lateral locked plating for complete articular distal femur fractures?. Injury. 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2021.11.037

[36] Internal Fixation of Type-C Distal Femoral Fractures in Osteoporotic Bone. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2011. DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.j.01142

[37] Meta-analysis of the clinical efficacy and safety of single versus dual plate in the treatment of comminuted distal femur fractures. EFORT Open Reviews. 2024. DOI: 10.1530/eor-23-0160

[38] Technical considerations to avoid delayed and non-union. Injury. 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.04.019

[39] Fractures of the distal femur in elderly patients: retrospective analysis of a case series treated with single or double plate. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2022. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-022-02944-6

[40] A Lange Medical Book Current Diagnosis Treatment In Orthopedics Fifth Edition. 3Sports Medicine > Image KNEE INJURIES.

[42] Orthopaedic Knowledge Update Trauma. Fractures of the Distal Femur > Summary.

[43] A surgical algorithm for the management of recalcitrant distal femur nonunions based on distal femoral bone stock, fracture alignment, medial void, and stability of fixation. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery. 2019. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-019-03172-0

[45] Treatment of infra-isthmal femoral fracture with an intramedullary nail: Is retrograde nailing a better option than antegrade nailing?. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery. 2018. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-018-2961-6

[47] Delayed Unions or Nonunions of the Distal Femur. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2024. DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.23.00985

[48] Prospective study on functional outcome of distal femur fracture treated by open reduction and internal fixation using distal femur locking plate in Tibebe Ghion Specialized Hospital, Bahirdar, North West Ethiopia. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2024. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-05054-7

[49] External fixator followed by a plate for distraction, reduction, and fixation in neglected femoral diaphyseal fractures. Injury. 2013. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2013.03.019

[52] Opinions Regarding Dual-Implant Fixation and Weight-Bearing in Distal Femur Fractures: A Survey From the 2022 Orthopaedic Trauma Association Traveling Fellowship. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2025. DOI: 10.5435/jaaos-d-24-01222

[54] Reliability of radiographs in defining union of internally fixed fractures. Injury. 2004. DOI: 10.1016/s0020-1383(03)00262-6

[55] Nails or plates for fracture of the distal femur?. The Bone & Joint Journal. 2016. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.98b6.36826

[56] Virtual Mechanical Testing Based on Low-Dose Computed Tomography Scans for Tibial Fracture. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2019. DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.18.01139

[57] Far Cortical Locking Versus Standard Constructs for Locked Plate Fixation in the Treatment of Acute, Displaced Fractures of the Distal Femur. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2024. DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.23.01390

[58] Mono- versus polyaxial locking plates in distal femur fractures – a biomechanical comparison of the Non-Contact-Bridging- (NCB) and the PERILOC-plate. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2014. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-369

[60] Medial approach for the treatment of femur fractures in association with vascular injury. Injury. 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2020.03.044

[63] The influence of osteoporosis in femoral fracture healing time. Injury. 2009. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2008.10.035

[65] Outcomes of Intramedullary Nailing and External Fixation of Open Tibial Fractures. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2022. DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.22.00016

[66] F4.1 Intramedullary nailing of Grade II and Grade III open diaphyseal femoral and tibial fractures. Injury. 2013. DOI: 10.1016/s0020-1383(13)70062-7

[67] The effect of autologous concentrated bone-marrow grafting on the healing of femoral shaft non-unions after locked intramedullary nailing. Injury. 2014. DOI: 10.1016/s0020-1383(14)70013-0

[68] Surgically treated Hoffa Fractures with poor long-term functional results. Injury. 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.11.026

[69] Aaos Comprehensive Orthopaedic Review 3. Anatomy and Biomechanics of the Knee > I. Anatomy.

[73] Orthopaedic Knowledge Update Sports Medicine 6. Cruciate Ligament Injuries > Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury > Anatomy and Biomechanics.

[78] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. POSTEROMEDIAL CORNER.

[79] Orthopaedic Basic Science Fifth Edition Print Ebook. Biology and Mechanics of the Skeletal Extracellular Matrix > Gross Anatomy.

[81] Rockwood And Green S Fractures In Adults. 59: Patellar Fractures and Dislocations and Extensor Mechanism Injuries > Anterior Cruciate Ligament Anatomy.

[83] Aaos Comprehensive Orthopaedic Review 3. Radiographic Evaluation and Surgical Anatomy of the Knee > II. Surgical Anatomy of the Knee.

[84] Miller S Review Of Orthopaedics. ARTHRODESIS PERSON > Kinetics.

[87] Aaos Comprehensive Orthopaedic Review 3. Radiographic Evaluation and Surgical Anatomy of the Knee > I. Radiographic Evaluation.

[89] Aaos Comprehensive Orthopaedic Review 3. Knee Dislocations and Patellar Fractures* > I. Knee Dislocations.

[99] Periprosthetic Fractures of the Knee. The Journal of Arthroplasty. 2007. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2006.12.054

[106] Treatment of open intraarticular distal femur fractures by Ilizarov fixator; an approach to improve the outcome with mid-term results. Injury. 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2019.05.011

[107] Treatment of aseptic non-union after intramedullary nailing without removal of the nail. Injury. 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.04.022

[111] Treatment of diaphyseal nonunion of the femur and tibia using an expandable nailing system. Injury. 2009. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2008.07.029

[114] Validation of the Non-Union Scoring System in 300 long bone non-unions. Injury. 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2014.10.030

[116] Algorithmic treatment of Busch-Hoffa distal femur fractures: A technical note based on a modified Letenneur classification. Injury. 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2018.06.008

[119] Management of a nonunion of the distal femur in osteoporotic bone with the internal fixation system LISS (less invasive stabilization system). Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery. 2006. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-006-0102-0

[123] Mortality after Reamed Intramedullary Nailing of Bilateral Femur Fractures. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 2004. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000144862.18816.83

[125] Locking Compression Plates for the Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Around Well-Fixed Total Hip and Knee Implants. The Journal of Arthroplasty. 2011. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.07.002

[130] Unexpected tibial non-union after minimally invasive bridge plating: a case report. Injury. 2015. DOI: 10.1016/s0020-1383(15)30044-9

[137] The method of internal fixation to be described has proved efficacious both in establishing union and in providing sufficient rigidity to permit weight-bearing, without restriction, as carly as the seventh postoperative day. Two slot. 1950.

[144] Biomechanical comparison of four different internal fixation constructs applied to stabilise Letenneur type I Hoffa fractures: a finite element analysis. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2026. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-026-09748-3

[145] Biomechanical effects of six internal fixation methods for distal femoral AO/OTA 33C1 fractures: finite element analysis. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2025. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-025-08996-z

[148] Interprosthetic femoral fractures: Morbidity and mortality in a retrospective, multicenter study. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2018.07.026

[157] Application of the Radiographic Union Scale for Tibial fractures (RUST): Assessment of healing rate and time of tibial fractures managed with intramedullary nailing. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2019.10.010

[159] What is the risk of stress risers for interprosthetic fractures of the femur? A biomechanical analysis. International Orthopaedics. 2012. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-012-1697-0

[176] Association between visceral adiposity index and delayed union/nonunion after tibial or femoral shaft fractures: a single-center retrospective cohort study. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2026. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-026-10074-x

[180] Intra-articular Fracture Pattern in Intercondylar Distal Femur Fractures: An Analysis of Frequency and Major Fracture Fragments. Injury. 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2020.11.061

[183] Distal Femur Valgus Deformity After Rigid Intramedullary Nailing of Adolescent Femoral Shaft Fracture. JAAOS: Global Research and Reviews. 2023. DOI: 10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-22-00220

[186] Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) for the prediction of non-union consolidation. Injury. 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.01.021

Creative Commons BY-NC 4.0

CC Creative Commons licence
BY Attribution — you must credit the source
NC NonCommercial — not for commercial use

Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International

Creative Commons Corporation ("Creative Commons") is not a law firm and does not provide legal services or legal advice. Distribution of Creative Commons public licenses does not create a lawyer-client or other relationship. Creative Commons makes its licenses and related information available on an "as-is" basis. Creative Commons gives no warranties regarding its licenses, any material licensed under their terms and conditions, or any related information. Creative Commons disclaims all liability for damages resulting from their use to the fullest extent possible.

Using Creative Commons Public Licenses

Creative Commons public licenses provide a standard set of terms and conditions that creators and other rights holders may use to share original works of authorship and other material subject to copyright and certain other rights specified in the public license below. The following considerations are for informational purposes only, are not exhaustive, and do not form part of our licenses.

Considerations for licensors: Our public licenses are intended for use by those authorized to give the public permission to use material in ways otherwise restricted by copyright and certain other rights. Our licenses are irrevocable. Licensors should read and understand the terms and conditions of the license they choose before applying it. Licensors should also secure all rights necessary before applying our licenses so that the public can reuse the material as expected. Licensors should clearly mark any material not subject to the license. This includes other CC- licensed material, or material used under an exception or limitation to copyright. More considerations for licensors: wiki.creativecommons.org/Considerations_for_licensors

Considerations for the public: By using one of our public licenses, a licensor grants the public permission to use the licensed material under specified terms and conditions. If the licensor's permission is not necessary for any reason--for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright--then that use is not regulated by the license. Our licenses grant only permissions under copyright and certain other rights that a licensor has authority to grant. Use of the licensed material may still be restricted for other reasons, including because others have copyright or other rights in the material. A licensor may make special requests, such as asking that all changes be marked or described. Although not required by our licenses, you are encouraged to respect those requests where reasonable. More considerations for the public: wiki.creativecommons.org/Considerations_for_licensees

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License

By exercising the Licensed Rights (defined below), You accept and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License ("Public License"). To the extent this Public License may be interpreted as a contract, You are granted the Licensed Rights in consideration of Your acceptance of these terms and conditions, and the Licensor grants You such rights in consideration of benefits the Licensor receives from making the Licensed Material available under these terms and conditions.

Section 1 -- Definitions.

a. Adapted Material means material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights that is derived from or based upon the Licensed Material and in which the Licensed Material is translated, altered, arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the Licensor. For purposes of this Public License, where the Licensed Material is a musical work, performance, or sound recording, Adapted Material is always produced where the Licensed Material is synched in timed relation with a moving image.

b. Adapter's License means the license You apply to Your Copyright and Similar Rights in Your contributions to Adapted Material in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Public License.

c. Copyright and Similar Rights means copyright and/or similar rights closely related to copyright including, without limitation, performance, broadcast, sound recording, and Sui Generis Database Rights, without regard to how the rights are labeled or categorized. For purposes of this Public License, the rights specified in Section 2(b)(1)-(2) are not Copyright and Similar Rights.

d. Effective Technological Measures means those measures that, in the absence of proper authority, may not be circumvented under laws fulfilling obligations under Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty adopted on December 20, 1996, and/or similar international agreements.

e. Exceptions and Limitations means fair use, fair dealing, and/or any other exception or limitation to Copyright and Similar Rights that applies to Your use of the Licensed Material.

f. Licensed Material means the artistic or literary work, database, or other material to which the Licensor applied this Public License.

g. Licensed Rights means the rights granted to You subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, which are limited to all Copyright and Similar Rights that apply to Your use of the Licensed Material and that the Licensor has authority to license.

h. Licensor means the individual(s) or entity(ies) granting rights under this Public License.

i. NonCommercial means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation. For purposes of this Public License, the exchange of the Licensed Material for other material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights by digital file-sharing or similar means is NonCommercial provided there is no payment of monetary compensation in connection with the exchange.

j. Share means to provide material to the public by any means or process that requires permission under the Licensed Rights, such as reproduction, public display, public performance, distribution, dissemination, communication, or importation, and to make material available to the public including in ways that members of the public may access the material from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

k. Sui Generis Database Rights means rights other than copyright resulting from Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, as amended and/or succeeded, as well as other essentially equivalent rights anywhere in the world.

l. You means the individual or entity exercising the Licensed Rights under this Public License. Your has a corresponding meaning.

Section 2 -- Scope.

a. License grant.

1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to:

a. reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part, for NonCommercial purposes only; and

b. produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material for NonCommercial purposes only.

2. Exceptions and Limitations. For the avoidance of doubt, where Exceptions and Limitations apply to Your use, this Public License does not apply, and You do not need to comply with its terms and conditions.

3. Term. The term of this Public License is specified in Section 6(a).

4. Media and formats; technical modifications allowed. The Licensor authorizes You to exercise the Licensed Rights in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter created, and to make technical modifications necessary to do so. The Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any right or authority to forbid You from making technical modifications necessary to exercise the Licensed Rights, including technical modifications necessary to circumvent Effective Technological Measures. For purposes of this Public License, simply making modifications authorized by this Section 2(a) (4) never produces Adapted Material.

5. Downstream recipients.

a. Offer from the Licensor -- Licensed Material. Every recipient of the Licensed Material automatically receives an offer from the Licensor to exercise the Licensed Rights under the terms and conditions of this Public License.

b. No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material.

6. No endorsement. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be construed as permission to assert or imply that You are, or that Your use of the Licensed Material is, connected with, or sponsored, endorsed, or granted official status by, the Licensor or others designated to receive attribution as provided in Section 3(a)(1)(A)(i).

b. Other rights.

1. Moral rights, such as the right of integrity, are not licensed under this Public License, nor are publicity, privacy, and/or other similar personality rights; however, to the extent possible, the Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any such rights held by the Licensor to the limited extent necessary to allow You to exercise the Licensed Rights, but not otherwise.

2. Patent and trademark rights are not licensed under this Public License.

3. To the extent possible, the Licensor waives any right to collect royalties from You for the exercise of the Licensed Rights, whether directly or through a collecting society under any voluntary or waivable statutory or compulsory licensing scheme. In all other cases the Licensor expressly reserves any right to collect such royalties, including when the Licensed Material is used other than for NonCommercial purposes.

Section 3 -- License Conditions.

Your exercise of the Licensed Rights is expressly made subject to the following conditions.

a. Attribution.

1. If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:

a. retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material:

i. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated);

ii. a copyright notice;

iii. a notice that refers to this Public License;

iv. a notice that refers to the disclaimer of warranties;

v. a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable;

b. indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications; and

c. indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, this Public License.

2. You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information.

3. If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent reasonably practicable.

4. If You Share Adapted Material You produce, the Adapter's License You apply must not prevent recipients of the Adapted Material from complying with this Public License.

Section 4 -- Sui Generis Database Rights.

Where the Licensed Rights include Sui Generis Database Rights that apply to Your use of the Licensed Material:

a. for the avoidance of doubt, Section 2(a)(1) grants You the right to extract, reuse, reproduce, and Share all or a substantial portion of the contents of the database for NonCommercial purposes only;

b. if You include all or a substantial portion of the database contents in a database in which You have Sui Generis Database Rights, then the database in which You have Sui Generis Database Rights (but not its individual contents) is Adapted Material; and

c. You must comply with the conditions in Section 3(a) if You Share all or a substantial portion of the contents of the database.

For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 4 supplements and does not replace Your obligations under this Public License where the Licensed Rights include other Copyright and Similar Rights.

Section 5 -- Disclaimer of Warranties and Limitation of Liability.

a. UNLESS OTHERWISE SEPARATELY UNDERTAKEN BY THE LICENSOR, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, THE LICENSOR OFFERS THE LICENSED MATERIAL AS-IS AND AS-AVAILABLE, AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE LICENSED MATERIAL, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY, OR OTHER. THIS INCLUDES, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT KNOWN OR DISCOVERABLE. WHERE DISCLAIMERS OF WARRANTIES ARE NOT ALLOWED IN FULL OR IN PART, THIS DISCLAIMER MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

b. TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, IN NO EVENT WILL THE LICENSOR BE LIABLE TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, NEGLIGENCE) OR OTHERWISE FOR ANY DIRECT, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY, OR OTHER LOSSES, COSTS, EXPENSES, OR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS PUBLIC LICENSE OR USE OF THE LICENSED MATERIAL, EVEN IF THE LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH LOSSES, COSTS, EXPENSES, OR DAMAGES. WHERE A LIMITATION OF LIABILITY IS NOT ALLOWED IN FULL OR IN PART, THIS LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

c. The disclaimer of warranties and limitation of liability provided above shall be interpreted in a manner that, to the extent possible, most closely approximates an absolute disclaimer and waiver of all liability.

Section 6 -- Term and Termination.

a. This Public License applies for the term of the Copyright and Similar Rights licensed here. However, if You fail to comply with this Public License, then Your rights under this Public License terminate automatically.

b. Where Your right to use the Licensed Material has terminated under Section 6(a), it reinstates:

1. automatically as of the date the violation is cured, provided it is cured within 30 days of Your discovery of the violation; or

2. upon express reinstatement by the Licensor.

For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 6(b) does not affect any right the Licensor may have to seek remedies for Your violations of this Public License.

c. For the avoidance of doubt, the Licensor may also offer the Licensed Material under separate terms or conditions or stop distributing the Licensed Material at any time; however, doing so will not terminate this Public License.

d. Sections 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 survive termination of this Public License.

Section 7 -- Other Terms and Conditions.

a. The Licensor shall not be bound by any additional or different terms or conditions communicated by You unless expressly agreed.

b. Any arrangements, understandings, or agreements regarding the Licensed Material not stated herein are separate from and independent of the terms and conditions of this Public License.

Section 8 -- Interpretation.

a. For the avoidance of doubt, this Public License does not, and shall not be interpreted to, reduce, limit, restrict, or impose conditions on any use of the Licensed Material that could lawfully be made without permission under this Public License.

b. To the extent possible, if any provision of this Public License is deemed unenforceable, it shall be automatically reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make it enforceable. If the provision cannot be reformed, it shall be severed from this Public License without affecting the enforceability of the remaining terms and conditions.

c. No term or condition of this Public License will be waived and no failure to comply consented to unless expressly agreed to by the Licensor.

d. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be interpreted as a limitation upon, or waiver of, any privileges and immunities that apply to the Licensor or You, including from the legal processes of any jurisdiction or authority.

Creative Commons is not a party to its public licenses. Notwithstanding, Creative Commons may elect to apply one of its public licenses to material it publishes and in those instances will be considered the “Licensor.” The text of the Creative Commons public licenses is dedicated to the public domain under the CC0 Public Domain Dedication. Except for the limited purpose of indicating that material is shared under a Creative Commons public license or as otherwise permitted by the Creative Commons policies published at creativecommons.org/policies, Creative Commons does not authorize the use of the trademark "Creative Commons" or any other trademark or logo of Creative Commons without its prior written consent including, without limitation, in connection with any unauthorized modifications to any of its public licenses or any other arrangements, understandings, or agreements concerning use of licensed material. For the avoidance of doubt, this paragraph does not form part of the public licenses.

Creative Commons may be contacted at creativecommons.org.