Nailing of inter- and subtrochanteric fractures – operative technique

Česká verzia

Authors: P. Douša; J. Skála-Rosenbaum
Authors place of work: Ortopedicko-traumatologická klinika 3. LF UK a FNKV, Praha-Vinohrady přednosta: Prof. MUDr. M. Krbec, CSc.
Published in the journal: Rozhl. Chir., 2013, roč. 92, č. 10, s. 615-620.
Category: Various Specialization

Práce je určena k postgraduálnímu vzdělávání lékařů.

Summary

Intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures are a quite heterogeneous and imprecisely defined group of fractures. These fractures can be essentially divided into two basic groups.

The first one belongs to trochanteric fractures. In the AO/ASIF classification; these fractures are called intertrochanteric (31A3). In the second group, the term subtrochanteric fracture is used by most authors for fractures about 5 cm distally from lesser trochanter. In both intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures, the proximal fragment is formed by femoral head, neck and greater trochanter including its base with vastus ridge (tuberculum vastoadductorium or innominate tubercle). On this tubercle, the gluteus medius muscle (proximally) and the origin of the vastus lateralis muscle (distally) are attached. Tension of these muscles may cause dislocation of the proximal fragment. For this reason, reduction of the fracture can be troublesome and it is more difficult than in pertrochanteric fractures

It seems that intramedullary nailing will remain the favorite technique of most of the surgeons dealing with intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. We use short reconstruction nail in intertrochanteric fractures. It is useful to use long reconstruction nail in subtrochanteric fractures. Distal locking of the nail is necessary. Dynamic distal locking is preferred because the two main fragments are compressed along the axis of the nail.

The number of complications was largely related to technical errors, such as insufficient reduction or an incorrectly inserted implant. No implant can compensate for errors due to surgery.

Serious complications can be reduced by the correct assessment of fracture type, the use of an appropriate operative technique and early treatment of potential complications. The necessity of restoring continuity in the medial cortex of the femoral neck (Adams’ arch) is the requirement that should be observed. Pseudoarthrosis or varus malalignment in a healed hip should be managed by valgus osteotomy. When the femoral head or the acetabulum is damaged, total hip arthroplasty is indicated.

A prerequisite for successful surgical outcome is urgently and correctly performed osteosynthesis allowing for early rehabilitation and mobilisation of the patient

Key words:
intertrochanteric fracture – subtrochanteric fracture – intramedullary nailing – operative technique

Zdroje

1. Evans EM. The treatment of trochanteric fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg 1949;31–B:190–203.

2. Haidukewych GJ. Intertrochanteric fractures: Ten tips to improve results. J Bone Joint Surg 2009;91–A:712–719.

3. Douša P. Subtrochanteric fractures: intramedullary fixation. In Waddell J (ed). Fractures of the proximal femur: Improving outcomes. Philadelphia, Elsevier 2010:187–206.

4. Fielding JW, Magliato, HJ. Subtrochanteric fractures. Surg Gynec Obstet 1966;122:155–160.

5. Skála-Rosenbaum J, Bartoníček J, Bartoška R. Single-centre study of hip fractures in Prague, Czech Republic, 1997–2007. Int Orthop 2010;35:587–593.

6. Russell TA. Subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. In Browner BD, Jupiter JB, Levine AM (eds): Skeltal Trauma, 3rd edition. Philadelphia, Saunders 2003:1832–1878.

7. Ekström W, Németh G, SamnegĆrd E, et al. Quality of life after a subtrochanteric fracture: a prospective cohort study on 87 elderly patients. Injury 2009;40:371–6.

8. Perren SM. Evolution of the internal fixation of long bone fractures. The scientific basis of biological internal fixation: choosing a new balance between stability and biology. J Bone Joint Surg 2002;84–B:1093–1100.

9. Hasenboehler EA, Agudelo JF, Morgan SJ, et al. Treatment of complex proximal femoral fractures with the proximal femur locking compression plate. Orthopedics 2007;30:618–623.

10. Oh CW, Kim JJ, Byun YS, et al. Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis of subtrochanteric femur fractures with a locking plate: a prospective series of 20 fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2009;129:1659–1665.

11. Kempf I, Grosse A, Taglang G, Favreul E. Le clou gamma dans le traitment á foyer fermé des fractures trochantériennes. Resultats et indiacations á propos dęune série de 121 cas. Rev Chir Orthop 1993;79:29–40.

12. Bartoníček J, Douša P, Krbec M. Komplikace osteosyntézy zlomenin horního konce femuru gama hřebem. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Čech 1998;65:84–99.

13. Pavelka T, Matějka J, Červenková H. Komplikace osteosyntézy krátkým proximálním femorálním hřebem. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Čech 2005;72:344–354.

14. Ostrum RF, Marcantonio A, Marburger RA. Critical analysis of the eccentric starting point for trochanteric intramedullary femoral nailing. J Orthop Trauma 2005;19:681–686.

15. Hwang JH, Oh JK, Han SH, et al. Mismatch between PFNa and medullary canal causing difficulty in nailing of the pertrochanteric fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2008;128:1443–1446.

16. Leunig M, Meyer M, Becj M, et al. Fatal retroperitoneal hemorrhhage caused by perforation of guidewire pin for proximal femur fixation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2002;122:61–63.

17. Baumgartner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM, Keggi JM. The value of the tip-apex distance in predicting failure of fixation of peritrochanteric fractures of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg 1995;77– A:1058–1064.

18. Fogagnolo F, Kfuri M, Paccola CAJ. Intramedullary fixation of pertrochanteric hip fractures with the short AO-ASIF proximal femoral nail. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2004;124:31–37.

19. Heinz T, Vécsei V. Komplikationen und Fehler bei der Anwendung des Gammanagels. Chirurg 1994;65:943–952.