Tip-apex distance and other predictors of outcome in cephalomedullary nailing of unstable trochanteric fractures.
Cephalomedullary nails
Cut-out
Implant failure
Intertrochanteric fractures
Tip-apex distance
Journal
Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma
ISSN: 0976-5662
Titre abrégé: J Clin Orthop Trauma
Pays: India
ID NLM: 101559469
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2019
Oct 2019
Historique:
received:
27
10
2018
revised:
22
04
2019
accepted:
24
04
2019
entrez:
8
11
2019
pubmed:
7
11
2019
medline:
7
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Cephalomedullary nails are presently the gold standard in management of unstable trochanteric fractures. The tip-apex distance (TAD) is one of the most important factors that determines success or failure of fixation, but was described originally in context of an extramedullary hip screw. Cephalomedullary nails use a different biomechanical approach to fixation; and it is hypothesized that the TAD rule may not apply similarly with these. The aim of this study is to assess whether a high TAD correlates with poor outcomes with cephalomedullary nails, and to elucidate other factors that may predict such outcome. We retrospectively reviewed the clinical and radiographic records of patients with intertrochanteric fractures, treated at our institution over a 2-year period. Those with unstable fractures (31.A2 and 31.A3), and who were treated with cephalomedullary nails were included in the study. The TAD and the position of the device in the femoral head (Cleveland index) were assessed. Other factors that could influence outcome like age, gender, AO fracture type, restoration of neck-shaft angle and degree of osteoporosis were analysed. Radiographic records of up-to at-least 3 months post-operatively were assessed for complications. After applying the exclusion criteria, 75 patients were included in the analysis. The overall rate of complications was 12%. They occurred in two major patterns - varus collapse and cut-out occurred in 5 patients (6.67%), and device migration in 4 patients (5.33%). The average TAD of patients with cut-out was 28.78 mm, compared to 19.44 mm in those without cut-out ( As with extramedullary devices, TAD, along with sub-optimal device positioning and poor restoration of neck-shaft angle is a useful predictor of cut-out even with cephalomedullary nails, negating the initial hypothesis. The above factors in combination have a more significant effect than any one factor in isolation to cause varus collapse and implant cut-out. However these do not affect Z effect, reverse Z effect or other types of device migration seen especially with dual-screw nails.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Cephalomedullary nails are presently the gold standard in management of unstable trochanteric fractures. The tip-apex distance (TAD) is one of the most important factors that determines success or failure of fixation, but was described originally in context of an extramedullary hip screw. Cephalomedullary nails use a different biomechanical approach to fixation; and it is hypothesized that the TAD rule may not apply similarly with these. The aim of this study is to assess whether a high TAD correlates with poor outcomes with cephalomedullary nails, and to elucidate other factors that may predict such outcome.
METHODS
METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed the clinical and radiographic records of patients with intertrochanteric fractures, treated at our institution over a 2-year period. Those with unstable fractures (31.A2 and 31.A3), and who were treated with cephalomedullary nails were included in the study. The TAD and the position of the device in the femoral head (Cleveland index) were assessed. Other factors that could influence outcome like age, gender, AO fracture type, restoration of neck-shaft angle and degree of osteoporosis were analysed. Radiographic records of up-to at-least 3 months post-operatively were assessed for complications.
RESULTS
RESULTS
After applying the exclusion criteria, 75 patients were included in the analysis. The overall rate of complications was 12%. They occurred in two major patterns - varus collapse and cut-out occurred in 5 patients (6.67%), and device migration in 4 patients (5.33%). The average TAD of patients with cut-out was 28.78 mm, compared to 19.44 mm in those without cut-out (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
As with extramedullary devices, TAD, along with sub-optimal device positioning and poor restoration of neck-shaft angle is a useful predictor of cut-out even with cephalomedullary nails, negating the initial hypothesis. The above factors in combination have a more significant effect than any one factor in isolation to cause varus collapse and implant cut-out. However these do not affect Z effect, reverse Z effect or other types of device migration seen especially with dual-screw nails.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31695266
doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2019.04.018
pii: S0976-5662(18)30643-X
pmc: PMC6823765
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
S88-S94Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Type : ErratumIn
Type : ErratumIn
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2019 Delhi Orthopedic Association. All rights reserved.
Références
Bone Joint J. 2014 Aug;96-B(8):1029-34
pubmed: 25086117
Indian J Orthop. 2012 Sep;46(5):556-60
pubmed: 23162149
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992 Jul;74(4):625
pubmed: 1624529
Unfallchirurg. 2005 Nov;108(11):938, 940, 941-6 passim
pubmed: 15977008
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1959 Dec;41-A:1399-408
pubmed: 13849408
J Orthop Trauma. 2007 Nov-Dec;21(10 Suppl):S1-133
pubmed: 18277234
Patient Saf Surg. 2011 Jun 22;5:17
pubmed: 21696626
Int Orthop. 2010 Dec;34(8):1273-6
pubmed: 19784649
J Orthop Surg Res. 2016 Apr 01;11:41
pubmed: 27039374
Injury. 2006 Oct;37(10):984-9
pubmed: 16934256
JB JS Open Access. 2017 Nov 02;2(4):e0022
pubmed: 30229226
Int Orthop. 2001;25(5):298-301
pubmed: 11794263
Int Orthop. 2010 Jun;34(5):719-22
pubmed: 19618186
Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2005;72(6):344-54
pubmed: 16455028
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2009 Jan;24(1):59-64
pubmed: 18977058
J Orthop Res. 2007 Dec;25(12):1568-73
pubmed: 17592624
Indian J Orthop. 2012 May;46(3):259-65
pubmed: 22719110
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002 Dec;(405):277-86
pubmed: 12461384
J Clin Diagn Res. 2017 Jul;11(7):RC05-RC09
pubmed: 28892987
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970 Apr;52(3):457-67
pubmed: 5425640
Injury. 2002 Jun;33(5):395-9
pubmed: 12095718
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Jul 18;94(14):1266-72
pubmed: 22810396
Injury. 2010 Dec;41(12):1312-6
pubmed: 20832795
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995 Jul;77(7):1058-64
pubmed: 7608228
J Orthop Surg Res. 2013 Oct 17;8:35
pubmed: 24135331