CCD angle & hip fractures - Predictor of fracture symmetry?
CCD-Angle
Elderly patients
Femoral neck fracture
Geriatric trauma
Intertrochanteric fracture
Trauma
Journal
Journal of orthopaedics
ISSN: 0972-978X
Titre abrégé: J Orthop
Pays: India
ID NLM: 101233220
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
19
11
2020
accepted:
07
02
2021
entrez:
8
3
2021
pubmed:
9
3
2021
medline:
9
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Hip fracture caused by fall is a common injury of the elderly. The risk of sustaining a contralateral hip fracture has been reported to be 5-10%. Aging society heightens the need of efficient prevention tools. To be able to cope with this demand, understanding of biomechanics of hip fractures are mandatory. Previous studies suggest that geometry of the proximal femur could play an important role for fracture probability and fracture type. Thus, analysis of hip geometry could play an important role in the prediction and prevention of bilateral hip fractures. Aim of this study was to elucidate the influence of caput collum diaphyseal angle on the fracture type of proximal femur. In a retrospective analysis, data of patients with an acute hip fracture who underwent surgical treatment within five years were included. Data was separated into two groups: (I) intra capsular femur fracture (femoral neck fractures) and (II) extra capsular femur fracture (inter- and subtrochanteric femur fractures). Occurrence of a bilateral fracture, age, gender, weight, height and caput collum diaphyseal angle (standardized measurement of the opposite joint on preoperative digital x-rays) of each group were further analyzed. Data of 448 patients were included ((I): 250 vs. (II): 198 patients). Group (I) showed a significant higher mean caput collum diaphyseal angle of 133.9 ± 7.0° (mean ± standard deviation) compared to group (II) with 127.6 ± 6.1° (F (1, 451) = 106.5, p = 0.00). In group (I) 0 patients had a caput collum diaphyseal angle <120° (varus), 214 patients (86%) 120°-140° and 35 patients (14%) angle>140° (valgus). In contrast, in group (II) 21 patients (10%) had a caput collum diaphyseal angle <120° (varus), 175 patients (86%) 120°-140° and 7 patients (4%) >140° (valgus). 52 patients had a bilateral hip fracture. 36 patients (69%) sustained a bilateral hip fracture of the same fracture type. Patients with an intra capsular proximal femur fracture showed a significantly higher caput collum diaphyseal angle compared to patients with an extra capsular proximal femur fracture. Moreover, intra capsular femur fractures are correlated with an indifferent (120-140°) or valgus (>140°) femoral neck configuration. Extra capsular femur fractures correlate with an indifferent (120-140°) or varian femoral neck configuration (<120°). The results support the assumption that the caput collum diaphyseal angle has an influence on fracture type of the proximal femur. This could possibly be a predictor for the fracture type of the contralateral hip (second fracture). Based on this, present data may benefit prosthetists in developing new and more efficient hip protectors. Level III. Retrospective comparative study.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Hip fracture caused by fall is a common injury of the elderly. The risk of sustaining a contralateral hip fracture has been reported to be 5-10%. Aging society heightens the need of efficient prevention tools. To be able to cope with this demand, understanding of biomechanics of hip fractures are mandatory. Previous studies suggest that geometry of the proximal femur could play an important role for fracture probability and fracture type. Thus, analysis of hip geometry could play an important role in the prediction and prevention of bilateral hip fractures. Aim of this study was to elucidate the influence of caput collum diaphyseal angle on the fracture type of proximal femur.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
METHODS
In a retrospective analysis, data of patients with an acute hip fracture who underwent surgical treatment within five years were included. Data was separated into two groups: (I) intra capsular femur fracture (femoral neck fractures) and (II) extra capsular femur fracture (inter- and subtrochanteric femur fractures). Occurrence of a bilateral fracture, age, gender, weight, height and caput collum diaphyseal angle (standardized measurement of the opposite joint on preoperative digital x-rays) of each group were further analyzed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Data of 448 patients were included ((I): 250 vs. (II): 198 patients). Group (I) showed a significant higher mean caput collum diaphyseal angle of 133.9 ± 7.0° (mean ± standard deviation) compared to group (II) with 127.6 ± 6.1° (F (1, 451) = 106.5, p = 0.00). In group (I) 0 patients had a caput collum diaphyseal angle <120° (varus), 214 patients (86%) 120°-140° and 35 patients (14%) angle>140° (valgus). In contrast, in group (II) 21 patients (10%) had a caput collum diaphyseal angle <120° (varus), 175 patients (86%) 120°-140° and 7 patients (4%) >140° (valgus). 52 patients had a bilateral hip fracture. 36 patients (69%) sustained a bilateral hip fracture of the same fracture type.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Patients with an intra capsular proximal femur fracture showed a significantly higher caput collum diaphyseal angle compared to patients with an extra capsular proximal femur fracture. Moreover, intra capsular femur fractures are correlated with an indifferent (120-140°) or valgus (>140°) femoral neck configuration. Extra capsular femur fractures correlate with an indifferent (120-140°) or varian femoral neck configuration (<120°). The results support the assumption that the caput collum diaphyseal angle has an influence on fracture type of the proximal femur. This could possibly be a predictor for the fracture type of the contralateral hip (second fracture). Based on this, present data may benefit prosthetists in developing new and more efficient hip protectors.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
Level III. Retrospective comparative study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33679019
doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2021.02.012
pii: S0972-978X(21)00029-5
pmc: PMC7898058
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1-4Informations de copyright
© 2021 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Professor P K Surendran Memorial Education Foundation.
Références
Injury. 2017 Jun;48(6):1155-1158
pubmed: 28325670
Osteoporos Int. 2016 Aug;27(8):2603-9
pubmed: 27112763
Medicine (Baltimore). 2015 May;94(21):e891
pubmed: 26020398
J Hum Evol. 1998 Apr;34(4):361-83
pubmed: 9595357
Chin Med J (Engl). 2018 Nov 5;131(21):2524-2530
pubmed: 30381585
J Bone Miner Res. 1994 Jul;9(7):1071-6
pubmed: 7942154
Osteoporos Int. 2012 Sep;23(9):2239-56
pubmed: 22419370
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016 Apr 14;17:166
pubmed: 27079195
Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2016 Jun;4(3):248-52
pubmed: 27517071
Surg Radiol Anat. 2016 Sep;38(7):775-80
pubmed: 26801666
Osteoporos Int. 2009 Dec;20(12):1977-88
pubmed: 19806286
Maturitas. 2015 Sep;82(1):85-93
pubmed: 26255681
J Orthop Sci. 2006 Oct;11(5):435-8
pubmed: 17013728
J Bone Miner Res. 2016 Apr;31(4):725-31
pubmed: 26572496
Injury. 2018 Aug;49(8):1458-1460
pubmed: 29699731
Isr J Health Policy Res. 2018 Aug 2;7(1):38
pubmed: 30068383
BMJ. 2006 Mar 11;332(7541):571-4
pubmed: 16513687
Osteoporos Int. 1997;7(5):407-13
pubmed: 9425497
J Bone Metab. 2016 Aug;23(3):175-82
pubmed: 27622182
BMJ Open. 2018 Apr 27;8(4):e019147
pubmed: 29703850
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Oct 06;(10):CD001255
pubmed: 20927724
J Orthop Translat. 2018 Jan 05;13:1-6
pubmed: 29662785