Treatment of distal femur fractures in a regional Australian hospital

Table 3 Comparison of primary end points for the implant treatment groups

	Surgical implant				P-value
	LISS(n = 20)	LISS-R(n = 11)	LISS-N(n = 9)	Alternative(n = 8)	LISS vs alternative	LISS-R vs LISS-N	LISS-R vs LISS-N vs alternative
Median Knee Extension (degrees)	0.5 (12.5)	6.0 ( 5.7)	0.0 (18.2)	2.5 ( 9.8)	0.8257	0.9134	0.9698
Median knee flexion (degrees)	96.0 (19.6)	102.0 (13.7)	90.0 (20.2)	90.0 (18.5)	0.8634	0.0143	0.0454
Median lysholm score	57.0 (29.4)	67.0 (30.4)	42.0 (21.9)	56.5 (11.0)	0.9108	0.1809	0.3075
Excellent (> 90)	2 (10%)	2 (18%)	0	0	1.00001	0.47891	0.31481
Good (84-90)	0	0	0	0	NA	NA	NA
Fair (65-83)	2 (10%)	2 (18%)	0	1 (13%)	1.00001	0.47891	0.60711
Poor (< 65)	8 (40%)	4 (36%)	4 (44%)	3 (38%)	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000
Union after 6 mo	14 (70%)	9 (82%)	5 (56%)	5 (63%)	1.0000	0.3359	0.4670

¹Less than 2 observations in a group makes this P-value unreliable. LISS: Less Invasive Stabilization System.