A comparative study of ipsilateral intertrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures treated with long proximal femoral nail antirotation or plate combinations

Objective: To compare the results of long proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA‐long) and plate combinations in the treatment of ipsilateral intertrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures. Methods: Between March 2004 and April 2009, 23 patients with ipsilateral intertrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures were treated with PFNA‐long or plate combinations. The patients were divided into two groups. Group I contained 13 patients who were treated with dynamic hip screws (DHS) combined with compression plate fixation. The 10 patients in Group II were treated with PFNA‐long. Results: The average follow‐up was 17.8 and 16.8 months for Groups I and II, respectively. The average union time for intertrochanteric fractures was 17.4 and 16.6 weeks in Groups I and II, respectively, and for femoral shaft fracture 22.2 and 21.5 weeks, respectively. There were nine good, two fair, and two poor functional results in Group I, and eight good, one fair, and one poor in Group II. There was nonunion of two femoral shaft fractures in Group I and one in Group II. There were no significant differences between the two groups in functional outcomes or major complications. Conclusion: Both treatment methods achieve satisfactory functional outcomes in patients with ipsilateral intertrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures. PFNA‐long is the better choice for the treatment of complex fractures, having the advantages of minimal exposure, reduced perioperative blood loss, and achievement of biological fixation of both fractures with a single implant.     

A comparison of intramedullary nailing and plate-screw fixation in the treatment for ipsilateral fracture of the hip and femoral shaft

We compared the outcomes of intramedullary nailing with plate-screw fixation in the treatment for ipsilateral fracture of the hip and femoral shaft. A retrospective study. Level 1 Trauma. Forty-one patients (32 males and 9 females; mean age, 34 years; age range, 21–53) with ipsilateral hip and femoral shaft fractures were treated between 1995 and 2005. Eighteen patients were injured in motor vehicle accidents, and 23 fell from a height. All patients were treated by one of the two methods of internal fixation: a screw-plate fixation (n = 24, Group I) or intramedullary nailing (n = 17, Group II). The fracture union time, nonunion, delayed union, implant failure, need of further surgeries, and functional outcomes were investigated and compared. Fisher’s exact test showed that Group I had a significantly higher frequency of nonunion than that of Group II (P = 0.029). Although Group I had more nonunions, delayed unions, and revision operations than Group II, the total union time was similar for both groups. Intramedullary nailing was found to be superior to screw-plate fixation due to improved functional bearing, increased rate of union, stability, and mechanical solidity. The reconstruction nail method is an acceptable alternative treatment for ipsilateral hip and femoral shaft fractures.     

两种手术方法治疗股骨干合并同侧股骨颈骨折的疗效比较

目的 比较股骨重建钉与逆行髓内钉加空心钉治疗股骨于合并同侧股骨颈骨折的疗效,探讨各自的手术适应证.方法 回顾性分析2001年1月至2010年5月收治的21例股骨干合并同侧股骨颈骨折患者资料,采用股骨重建钉固定10例(股骨重建钉组),逆行髓内钉加空心钉固定11例(逆行髓内钉加空心钉组).两组患者术前一般资料差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05),具有可比性.术后1、3、6、9、12个月及以后每年随访1次,通过临床和影像学评估骨折愈合情况和并发症的发生情况.结果 21例患者术后获12 ～48个月(平均27.1个月)随访.两组患者在手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、住院时间、股骨干骨折愈合时间、股骨颈骨折愈合时间及Friedman-Wyman功能评定结果等方面差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).股骨重建钉组住院费用高于逆行髓内钉加空心钉组,差异有统计学意义(t=16.710,P=0.016).两组股骨干骨折愈合率(9/10 vs.10/11)、股骨颈骨折愈合率(9/10 vs.11/11)差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).股骨重建钉组4例发生并发症,逆行髓内钉组7例发生并发症.结论 股骨干合并同侧股骨颈骨折的治疗应采取个体化原则.股骨重建钉更适用于股骨颈基底部骨折合并狭部及狭部以近的股骨干骨折;对于头下型、难复位的股骨颈骨折合并同侧股骨干远端骨折或需要同时处理的膝关节内损伤、关节周围骨折的患者,逆行髓内钉加空心钉更为理想.     

Ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures: a retrospective analysis of two treatment methods

Background  No consensus exists regarding the optimal treatment of ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures. The three major issues related to these fractures are the optimal timing of surgery, which fracture to stabilize first, and the optimal implant to use. In an effort to find answers to these three key issues, we report our experience of managing 27 patients with ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures by using two different treatment methods, i.e., reconstruction-type intramedullary nailing and various plate combinations. Materials and methods  We divided patients into two groups. Group I included 15 patients (13 males and 2 females) who were operated with cancellous lag screws or dynamic hip screws (DHS) for fractured neck and compression plate fixation for fractured shaft of the femur. Group II included 12 patients (11 males and 1 female) who were operated with reconstruction-type intramedullary nailing. Results  Mean age was 33.2 and 37.9 years in group I and II, respectively. Mean delay in surgery was 5.9 and 5.4 days in group I and II, respectively. Average union time for femoral neck fracture in groups I and II were 15.2 and 17.1 weeks, respectively; and for shaft fracture these times were 20.3 and 22.8 weeks, respectively. There were 13 (86.6%) good, 1 (6.7%) fair and 1 (6.7%) poor functional results in group I. There were 10 (83.3%) good, 1 (8.3%) fair and 1 (8.3%) poor functional results in group II. Conclusions  Both of the treatment methods used in the present study achieved satisfactory functional outcome in these complex fractures. Fixation with plate for shaft and screws or DHS for hip is easy from a technical point of view. Choice of the treatment method should be dictated primarily by the type of femoral neck fracture and the surgeon’s familiarity with the treatment method chosen. The femoral neck fracture should preferably be stabilized first, and a delay of 5–6 days does not affect the ultimate functional outcome.     

Surgical treatment for ipsilateral fractures of the hip and femoral shaft

Concomitant ipsilateral femoral shaft and neck fractures are difficult to treat. There is still no consensus on the optimal treatment of these complex fractures. Forty-seven patients with these complex fractures were treated in Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital between the periods of 1982 and 1998. Our standard treatment protocol is plate fixation for femoral shaft fracture and lag screw or dynamic hip screw (DHS) fixation for hip fracture. Among 42 cases treated with this protocol, 34 were males and 8 were females with an average age of 36 years and average follow-up period of 55 months. We divided hip fractures into two groups: femoral neck fracture as group I and intertrochanteric fracture as group II. There were no non-union and osteonecrosis of the hip in either group. One diaphyseal non-union was observed in group I and four in group II. There were 92 and 76% good functional results in groups I and II, respectively. The result shows that our standard method can yield a reliable outcome in group I, but not in group II.     

两种方法治疗股骨干合并同侧股骨颈骨折的比较研究

目的比较股骨重建带锁髓内钉和股骨颈三枚空心螺钉＋有限接触加压钢板治疗同侧股骨干并股骨颈骨折的临床疗效。方法对18例股骨干合并同侧股骨颈骨折病例进行回顾性分析,其中股骨颈三枚空心螺钉＋有限接触加压钢板治疗7例（A组）,股骨重建带锁髓内钉治疗11例（B组）。结果与B组相比,A组手术时间较长,术中及术后失血量较多,股骨干骨折平均愈合时间长（P〈0.05）,而两组股骨颈骨折平均愈合时间及术后Sanders髋关节评分无显著性差异（P〉0.05）。结论两种方法治疗股骨干合并同侧股骨颈骨折均可取得满意疗效,股骨重建带锁髓内钉治疗股骨干合并同侧股骨颈骨折在缩短手术时间及减少出血量方面优势明显。     

Are proximal screws necessary for osteosynthesis of stable-stem periprosthetic femoral fractures fixed with non-locking plate and cable?

IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the cable-plate-cable technique which comprises fixation of the proximal fragment using cable loops without additional proximal screws on the plate for the treatment of stable-stem periprosthetic femoral fractures around hip prostheses.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed Vancouver types B1 and C periprosthetic femoral fractures treated with a dynamic compression plate combined with Dall-Miles cable between 2010 and 2016 at a single institution and followed for at least 12 months. Patients were treated with proximal fragment fixation using cable combined with screws (Group I) or with proximal fragment fixation using cable alone (Group II). Demographic data, fracture types, and clinical and radiological outcomes were analyzed.ResultsA total of 50 patients were included (Group I, n = 23 patients; Group II, n = 27). Fracture union was achieved in 49 patients with one case of non-union in Group I and no cases of non-union in Group II. Mean time to union was 5.4 months in Group I and 5.1 months in Group II (P = 0.624). Mean Harris hip score at latest assessment was 69.5 in Group I and 69.4 in Group II (P = 0.919). Regarding complications, there was one deep wound infection, one stem subsidence, and one loss of reduction in Group I, and one stem subsidence in Group II. No significant difference in clinical and radiological outcomes between groups was observed.ConclusionsThe cable-plate-cable technique sufficiently treats Vancouver types B1 and C periprosthetic femoral fractures without use of additional screws in the proximal fragment.     

A new classification and treatment protocol for combined fractures of the femoral shaft with the proximal or distal femur with closed locked intramedullary nailing: clinical experience of 63 fractures

The medical records and radiographs of 63 patients, who were admitted between 1989-1997, with a combined femur fracture, were reviewed. Associated injuries were present in 38 (60%) patients. The combined fractures were classified into four major types depending on their anatomical position: type I, femoral shaft fracture combined with hip neck fracture; type II, femoral shaft fracture combined with a trochanteric fracture; type III, femoral shaft fracture combined with a distal femur fracture; and type IV, femoral shaft fracture combined with a proximal or distal femur fracture. The fractures were treated with locked intramedullary nailing and additional free cancellous 6.5-mm screws as needed. Fifty-six fractures healed without further operations. Of the remaining 6 fractures, 2 were material failures, 1 malunion with 3-cm shortening and external rotation of the femoral diaphysis, 2 early infections of the surgical wound, and 1 pseudarthrosis of the femoral shaft. All fractures were healed between 16 and 32 weeks (average: 20 weeks).     

采用长解剖型锁定钢板插入技术内固定治疗同侧股骨干骺端及骨干骨折21例

目的探讨采用长干骺端解剖型锁定钢板插入技术内固定治疗同侧股骨干骺端及骨干骨折的特点及疗效。方法自2007—06--2012—06采用长干骺端解剖型锁定钢板内固定治疗21例同侧股骨干骺端及骨干骨折。其中股骨近端合并股骨干骨折14例,股骨远端合并股骨干骨折7例。术中根据骨折部位选择干骺端切口。在股骨干骺端切口放置长干骺端解剖型锁定钢板,固定好干骺端骨折后,再作有限切口复位股骨干骨折。结果本组均获得随访1～3年,平均1．7年。股骨近端合并股骨干骨折骨愈合时间平均（27．21±7．58）周,股骨远端合并股骨干骨折愈合时间平均（24．71±7．64）周,均无钢板、螺钉断裂。1例开放性股骨远端合并股骨干骨折因感染延迟愈合,出现膝关节强直畸形。14例髋关节功能根据Majeed功能评分标准评定：优9例,平均（89．78±2．73）分;良3例,平均（79．00±4．36）分;可2例,平均（63．00±1．41）分。7例膝关节功能按Kolmert标准评定：优4例,良2例,可1例。结论采用较长的解剖型锁定钢板作为内固定材料手术治疗同侧股骨干骺端及骨干骨折是较好的选择。其特点有：①用1种内固定材料固定2个部位骨折,不剥离骨膜,有利于骨折愈合;②锁定螺钉固定后,成为一种角度固定的钢板,集合了钢板内固定和外固定架的优点;③采用有限切口可减少创伤、降低出血量、缩短住院时间。     

股骨干骨折合并同侧股骨颈骨折治疗的临床观察

目的：探讨股骨干合并同侧股骨颈骨折的治疗特点和不同固定方法的疗效。方法：股骨干骨折合并同侧股骨颈骨折27例,男22例,女5例;年龄14～65岁,平均35岁。动力髋螺钉（DHS）固定3例,加压钢板加空心加压螺钉固定12例,重建钉固定8例,顺行髓内钉加空心加压螺钉固定4例。13例固定术前用克氏针临时固定股骨颈骨折。结果：术后随访36～75个月,平均44个月。25例股骨颈骨折平均愈合时间4.5个月,2例股骨颈骨折不愈合。27例股骨干均愈合,平均愈合时间6个月。未用克氏针临时固定股骨颈骨折14例中,2例出现股骨颈不愈合,3例轻度髋内翻畸形。结论：股骨干合并同侧股骨颈骨折有许多固定方法可供选择,加压钢板加空心加压螺钉固定简便易用,在实施固定术前用克氏针临时固定股骨颈骨折可避免股骨颈骨折再移位和损伤。     

Ipsilateral fractures of the femoral neck and shaft.

Thirty-three patients with ipsilateral intracapsular femoral neck and shaft fractures were treated with antegrade reamed intramedullary (IM) nails and cancellous screw fixation of the femoral neck. The shaft fractures were fixed prior to definitive neck stabilization. A "reversed" nail construct was used in 13 patients, a conventional interlocked nail was used in 6, and a reconstruction nail was used in the remaining 14. Thirty-one (94%) of the femoral shaft fractures healed primarily. In two patients, the shaft fracture failed to unite and was bone grafted and plated, respectively; the fractures subsequently healed. However, only 27 (82%) of the femoral neck fractures healed after initial fixation. In six patients (18%), a symptomatic varus nonunion developed, requiring a valgus osteotomy. Five of the six femoral neck non-unions and all of the osteotomy sites united; however, two of these patients later developed osteonecrosis of their femoral heads. Closed reamed antegrade IM nailing with supplemental screw fixation of ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures did not produce uniformly successful results because of high rates of varus nonunion of the femoral neck fracture.     

Treatment for ipsilateral fractures of femoral neck and shaft

Background

Concomitant ipsilateral femoral shaft and neck fractures present a challenge to the orthopaedic surgeon, and no consensus has yet emerged on the optimal treatment method. We report the results of a retrospective study of 43 patients with these complex fractures who were treated at a single Level 1 trauma centre.

Patients and methods

The study participants consisted of 28 males and 15 females with a mean age of 43 years. The mean follow-up period was 48 months. Four different treatment methods were used: (1) antegrade reamed intramedullary nailing of the shaft with cancellous screw fixation of the neck, (2) dynamic hip screw (DHS) fixation of the neck and low-contact dynamic compression plate (LCDCP) fixation of the shaft, (3) cancellous screw fixation of the neck and LCDCP fixation of the shaft, and (4) reconstruction nailing of both shaft and neck.

Results

No statistically significant differences in amount of blood loss, duration of surgery, total complication rate, nor clinical results were found among the four treatment methods. For femoral neck fracture, however, the complication rate of cannulated screw with antegrade intramedullary nailing fixation was 11 times that of DHS with LCDCP fixation.

Conclusions

Antegrade nail with screw fixation is not a recommended treatment method in patients with ipsilateral femoral shaft and neck fractures.     

Neglected fractured neck of the femur: a predictive classification and treatment by osteosynthesis

A prospective study of 236 patients with neglected femoral neck fractures was done to determine the usefulness of a preoperative classification based on the radiologic changes that occur at the site of the fracture. Thirty-four patients were observed in Group I, 125 patients were observed in Group II, and nine patients were observed in Group III. One-hundred sixty-eight patients (71.2%) were treated by closed reduction and internal fixation with cancellous screw and free fibular graft. The fracture union was achieved in all 34 patients of Group I. Union was achieved in 111 (88.8%) of 125 patients in Group II, and it was achieved in three (33.3%) of nine patients in Group III. In 143 (96.6%) of 148 successfully treated patients, the hip joint remained clinically asymptomatic with normal radiological union. One-way analysis of variance showed a good predictive value of the above classification with the results achieved by osteosynthesis. A good interobserver agreement also was seen in all three groups. We concluded that the classification is of use in the preoperative evaluation of neglected fractures of the neck of femur. For a successful osteosynthesis, the femoral head should be viable, with the size of the proximal fragment at least 2.5 cm long.     

Treatment of ipsilateral hip and femoral shaft fractures with reconstructive intramedullary interlocking nail

Objective: To evaluate the results of reconstructive intramedullary interlocking nail in the treatment of ipsllateral hip and femoral shaft fractures. Methods: From August 1997 to November 2001, 13 patients were treated with the reconstructive intramedullary interlocking nail. Nine patients were associated with ipsllateral femoral neck fractures, three with ipsilateral intertrochanteric fractures, and one with subtrochanteric fracture. Results: The follow-up time was from 6 to 38 months with an average of 14 months. All the femoral shaft and hip fractures healed up well. There was no nonunion of the femoral neck, and only one varns malunion. No patient had avascular necrosis of the femoral head. The average healing time for femoral neck fracture was 4.6 months and for shaft fracture 5.8 months. The joint movement and other functions were fairly resumed. Conclusions: The reconstructive intramedullary interlocking nail, with less trauma, refiable fixation, and high rate of fracture healing, is an ideal method of choice in the treatment of ipsilateral hip and femoral shaft fractures.     

加长型PFNA治疗股骨干骨折伴同侧髋部骨折的临床观察

目的探讨股骨干骨折合并同侧髋部骨折的手术方法和疗效。方法分析自2006年10月至2009年6月应用手术治疗资料完整的20例股骨干骨折合并同侧髋部骨折患者,其中男16例,女4例;年龄27~57岁,平均42.6岁。股骨转子间骨折伴股骨干骨折10例,转子间骨折按Evans-Jensen分型,Ⅰ型1例,Ⅱ型3例,Ⅲ型2例,Ⅳ型4例;股骨颈骨折按G arden分型,Ⅰ型3例,Ⅱ型4例,Ⅲ型3例。17例患者伴有合并伤。结果本组随访12~24个月,平均21.5个月。所有股骨颈骨折均愈合,平均愈合时间为16周,无一例发生股骨头坏死;股骨转子间骨折平均愈合时间为16.2周;全部股骨干骨折均愈合,2例延迟愈合,平均愈合时间为22.2周。手术并发症4例。按F riedm an-W ym an评分标准评定,优14例,良4例,差2例,优良率90%。结论加长型PFNA是治疗股骨干骨折合并同侧髋部骨折可用的有效方法。     

Periprosthetic femoral fractures associated with contralateral hip disease

Femoral osteolysis associated with contralateral hip degenerative changes is a risk factor for ipsilateral periprosthetic femoral fracture. We report 5 comminuted proximal shaft fractures around loose femoral implants occurring in patients with both symptomatic femoral lysis and a painful hip on the other side. Our evolving strategy involves timely revision surgery once this pattern is recognized. Once fracture has occurred, emergent revision requires extensive medical evaluation, availability of long-stem revision implants, and appropriate instrumentation and allografts for fracture fixation.     

Ipsilateral fractures of femoral neck and shaft

Thirteen cases of ipsilateral intracapsular femoral neck and shaft fractures were seen. All cases occurred in young adults, with the mechanism of injury in all instances being high-energy trauma. The diagnosis of the femoral neck fracture was missed initially in four cases. The patients were divided into four groups according to treatment protocol: group 1 (two cases), both fractures treated nonoperatively; group 2 (four cases), femoral neck fracture treated nonoperatively, open reduction and internal fixation of femoral shaft fracture; group 3 (three cases), McMurray's osteotomy for femoral neck fracture and internal fixation for the femoral shaft fracture; and group 4 (four cases), open reduction and internal fixation of both fractures. The follow-up period ranged from 6 months to 10.1 years. There was a nonunion of one femoral neck fracture, while all shaft fractures united. The best results were seen in group 4 cases. It is also recommended that routine high-quality X-ray films of the hip should be done in all cases of femoral shaft fracture to decrease the high incidence of missed femoral neck fractures in ipsilateral injuries of the femur.     

Intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures. Part III: Long-term effects of static interlocking fixation.

The results of treatment of fractures of the femoral shaft with static interlocking nailing were reviewed retrospectively to determine the clinical importance of any stress-riser or stress-shielding properties of the nail. These properties, if relevant, would have been manifested by refracture of the femur, either through a hole used for a locking screw or through the original site of fracture after extraction of the device. Two hundred and fourteen fractures that had been treated with static interlocking nailing and that had healed without conversion to dynamic intramedullary fixation were divided into two groups. In Group I, which comprised 111 fractures, the static interlocking-fixation device was retained and in Group II, which comprised 103 fractures, the static interlocking-fixation device was removed during one operative procedure at an average of fourteen months after the injury. The average duration of follow-up was thirty months from the time of the original fixation in both groups. All patients in Group II were followed for a minimum of six months after removal of the nail. No femur in Group I, in which the static interlocked nail remained in situ, refractured. No femur in either group fractured through the proximal or the distal holes used for the locking screws. No locking screws or nails broke. One patient (1 per cent) in Group II had a refracture of the femoral shaft through the site of the original fracture six weeks after removal of the nail.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

重建钉治疗股骨干合并同侧髋部骨折的临床观察

目的：评价股骨重建钉治疗股骨干合并同侧髋部骨折的临床疗效及手术要点。方法：自2002年6月至2008年6月采用重建钉治疗15例股骨干合并同侧髋部骨折患者,全部为男性,年龄34-85岁,平均45岁。股骨干骨折WinquistI型2例,Ⅱ型6例,Ⅲ型2例,Ⅳ型2例,3例多段骨折。髋部骨折包括粗隆间骨折7例,股骨颈骨折8例（根据Garden分型,I型1例,Ⅱ型3例,Ⅲ型2例,Ⅳ型2例）。结果：15例患者均获随访,时间12～55个月,平均30．9个月。股骨颈骨折不愈合1例,内翻畸形1例;14例2-6个月获得髋部骨折愈合,平均4个月。股骨干骨折延迟愈合1例（9个月时愈合）,不愈合2例;13例4～9个月获得股骨干愈合,平均5．5个月。无感染、股骨头坏死及超过2cm的下肢短缩。Friedman—Wyman系统疗效评价：优良13例,一般1例,差1例。结论：股骨重建钉对于股骨干合并同侧髋部骨折固定可靠,并发症少,是一种有效的固定方式。