Subtrochanteric Fractures of The Femur: May a Short Nail Be a Reliable Option? | ||
The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery | ||
مقاله 8، دوره 12، شماره 11، بهمن 2024، صفحه 798-804 اصل مقاله (946.56 K) | ||
نوع مقاله: RESEARCH PAPER | ||
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22038/abjs.2024.67182.3194 | ||
نویسندگان | ||
Maria Berta Alonso Polo* 1؛ Claudio Peix1؛ Paula Velasco1؛ Sergio Marcos1؛ Francisco Borja Sobron2؛ José Cordero Ampuero1 | ||
1Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Madrid, Spain | ||
2Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón Calle del Dr. Esquerdo, Madrid, Spain | ||
چکیده | ||
Objectives: Treatment of subtrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur may be challenging due to their anatomical and biomechanical features. Intramedullary nails are the most frequently used devices, although there is no consensus concerning their optimal length. The aim of this study is to compare the functional and radiological outcomes of the fragility subtrochanteric fractures treated with short versus long cephalomedullary nails. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed including all over-65-year-old patients that underwent surgery with a cephalomedullary nail between January 2013 to December 2020 due to a subtrochanteric fracture. The primary outcome was the presence of mechanical complications (cut out, cut in, varus consolidation, nonunion and nail breakage). Accuracy of the reduction, distance from the fracture line to most proximal distal screw, operative time and Palmer Mobility score were also analyzed. Results: Ninety-five patients were included. There were not significant differences in complication rate, Parker mobility score nor quality of reduction between both cohorts. Patients with a good radiological reduction presented no complications, those with an acceptable reduction presented a complication rate of 35.5% and it raised to 53.3% in poorly reduced ones (P=0.002). The complication rate was higher in the <5cm distance group (58.33%) than in the >5cm distance group (22.64%) (P=0.014). Conclusion: Anatomical reduction may be the key factor in the management of subtrochanteric fractures, in order to avoid complications. The chosen device working length should also be taken into account to treat these challenging injuries. Level of evidence: IV | ||
کلیدواژهها | ||
Long nail؛ Nonunion؛ Reduction؛ Short nail؛ Subtrochanteric fracture | ||
مراجع | ||
1. Arshad Z, Thahir A, Rawal J, et al. Dynamic hip screw fixation of subtrochanteric femoral fractures. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2021; 31(7):1435-1441. doi:10.1007/s00590- 021-02895-4. 2. Hoskins W, Bingham R, Joseph S, et al. Subtrochanteric fracture: The effect of cerclage wire on fracture reduction and outcome. Injury. 2015; 46(10):1992-1995. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2015.07.001. 3. Yoon YC, Oh CW, Oh JK. Biomechanical comparison of proximal interlocking screw constructs in different subtrochanteric fracture models. J Orthop Sci. 2021; 26(2):266-270. doi:10.1016/j.jos.2020.03.005. 4. Ong JCY, Gill JR, Parker MJ. Mobility after intertrochanteric hip fracture fixation with either a sliding hip screw or a cephalomedullary nail: Sub group analysis of a randomised trial of 1000 patients. Injury. 2019; 50(10):1709-1714. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2019.06.015. 5. Kilinc BE, Oc Y, Kara A, Erturer RE. The effect of the cerclage wire in the treatment of subtrochanteric femur fracture with the long proximal femoral nail: A review of 52 cases. Int J Surg. 2018; 56:250-255. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.06.035. 6. Amer KM, Congiusta D V., Jain K, et al. Complication Rates in Intertrochanteric Fractures: A Database Analysis Comparing Sliding Hip Screw and Cephalomedullary Nail. Arch Bone Jt Surg2024; 12(7):506-514. doi:10.22038/ABJS.2024.64188.3081. 7. Mattisson L, Bojan A, Enocson A. Epidemiology, treatment and mortality of trochanteric and subtrochanteric hip fractures: data from the Swedish fracture register. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018; 19(1):1-8. doi:10.1186/s12891- 018-2276-3. 8. Kwak DK, Bang SH, Kim WH, Lee SJ, Lee S, Yoo JH. Biomechanics of subtrochanteric fracture fixation using short cephalomedullary nails: A finite element analysis. PLoS One. 2021; 16(7 July):1-15. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253862. 9. Okcu G, Ozkayin N, Okta C, Topcu I, Aktuglu K. Which implant is better for treating reverse obliquity fractures of the proximal femur: A standard or long nail? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471(9):2768-2775. doi:10.1007/s11999-013- 2948-0. 10. Dunn J, Kusnezov N, Bader J, Waterman BR, Orr J, Belmont PJ. Long versus short cephalomedullary nail for trochanteric femur fractures (OTA 31-A1, A2 and A3): a systematic review. J Orthop Traumatol. 2016; 17(4):361-367. doi:10.1007/s10195-016-0405-z. 11. Shannon SF, Yuan BJ, Cross WW, et al. Short versus Long Cephalomedullary Nails for Pertrochanteric Hip Fractures: A Randomized Prospective Study. J Orthop Trauma. 2019; 33(10):480-486. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000001553. 12. Pervez H, Parker MJ, Pryor GA, Lutchman L, Chirodian N. Classification of trochanteric fracture of the proximal femur: a study of the reliability of current systems. Injury. 2002; 33(8):713-715. doi:10.1016/s0020-1383(02)00089-x. 13. Shisha T. Parameters for defining efficacy in fracture healing. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2010; 7(1):15-16. 14. Voeten SC, Nijmeijer WS, Vermeer M, Schipper IB, Hegeman JH. Validation of the Fracture Mobility Score against the Parker Mobility Score in hip fracture patients. Injury. 2020; 51(2):395-399. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2019.10.035. 15. Mao W, Ni H, Li L, et al. Comparison of Baumgaertner and chang reduction quality criteria for the assessment of trochanteric fractures. Bone Joint Res. 2019; 8(10):502-508. doi:10.1302/2046-3758.810.BJR-2019-0032.R1. 16. Kasha S, Yalamanchili RK. Management of subtrochanteric fractures by nail osteosynthesis: a review of tips and tricks. Int Orthop. 2020; 44(4):645-653. doi:10.1007/s00264-019- 04404-z. 17. Park SY, Yang KH, Yoo JH, Yoon HK, Park HW. The treatment of reverse obliquity intertrochanteric fractures with the intramedullary hip nail. J Trauma. 2008; 65(4):852-857. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e31802b9559. 18. Galanopoulos IP, Mavrogenis AF, Megaloikonomos PD, et al. Similar function and complications for patients with short versus long hip nailing for unstable pertrochanteric fractures. SICOT J. 2018; 4. doi:10.1051/sicotj/2018023. 19. Kumar M, Akshat V, Kanwariya A, Gandhi M. A prospective study to evaluate the management of sub-trochanteric femur fractures with long proximal femoral nail. Malays Orthop J. 2017; 11(3):36-41. doi:10.5704/MOJ.1711.014. 20. Poutoglidou F, Krkovic M. Removal of a Broken Intramedullary Nail: A Case Report and Technical Description. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2022; 10(11):982-985. doi:10.22038/ABJS.2022.65407.3133. 21. Codesido P, Mejía A, Riego J, Ojeda-Thies C. Subtrochanteric fractures in elderly people treated with intramedullary fixation: quality of life and complications following open reduction and cerclage wiring versus closed reduction. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017; 137(8):1077-1085. doi:10.1007/s00402-017-2722-y. 22. Iwakura T, Niikura T, Lee SY, et al. Breakage of a third generation gamma nail: a case report and review of the literature. Case Rep Orthop. 2013; 2013:172352. doi:10.1155/2013/172352. 23. Cordero-Ampuero J, Peix C, Marcos S, Cordero G-G E. Influence of surgical quality (according to postoperative radiography) on mortality, complications and recovery of walking ability in 1425 hip fracture patients. Injury. 2021; 52 Suppl 4:S32-S36. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2021.02.037. 24. Ekström W, Németh G, Samnegård E, Dalen N, Tidermark J. Quality of life after a subtrochanteric fracture: a prospective cohort study on 87 elderly patients. Injury. 2009; 40(4):371- 376. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2008.09.010. 25. Bel JC. Pitfalls and limits of locking plates. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2019; 105(1S):S103-S109. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2018.04.031. 26. Leemans R. Proximal femoral nail failure in a subtrochanteric fracture: The importance of fracture to distal locking screw distance. Injury Extra. 2007; 38:445-450. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2007.03.015. | ||
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 236 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 215 |