medigraphic.com
ISSN 0185-3252 (Print)
Revista de la Asociación Médica del Centro Médico ABC

2021, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

An Med Asoc Med Hosp ABC 2021; 66 (2)

Hip cartilage arthroscopic evaluation after cephalomedullary nail cutout

Martínez-Peniche JL, Abonce-Zenteno J, Ávila-Del PJA, Tarazona-Velutini PF

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 132-136
PDF size: 254.98 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The cutout phenomenon consists in the protrusion of osteosynthesis material through the femoral neck and head, putting the material in direct contact with the hip joint cartilage. This event damages the articular cartilage and has important implications in long term function. Standard treatment consists in removal of the material and direct evaluation of the articular cartilage. Different treatment algorithms exist, considering the extension and degree of chondral damage. We present the case of a 28-year-old male, with hip cutout injury posterior to surgical fixation of a diaphyseal femoral fracture with a cephalomedullary nail, and a new way of exploring arthroscopically the joint, using the orifices left by the removed implant.


REFERENCES

  1. Weiss RJ, Montgomery SM, Al Dabbagh Z, Jansson KA. National data of 6409 Swedish inpatients with femoral shaft fractures: stable incidence between 1998 and 2004. Injury. 2009; 40 (3): 304-308.

  2. Salminen ST, Pihlajamaki HK, Avikainen VJ, Bostman OM. Population based epidemiologic and morphologic study of femoral shaft fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000; (372): 241-249.

  3. Fakhry SM, Rutledge R, Dahners LE, Kessler D. Incidence, management, and outcome of femoral shaft fracture: a statewide population-based analysis of 2805 adult patients in a rural state. J Trauma. 1994; 37 (2): 255-260; discussion 260-261.

  4. Rudloff MI, Smith WR. Intramedullary nailing of the femur: current concepts concerning reaming. J Orthop Trauma. 2009; 23 (5 Suppl): S12-S17.

  5. Turgut A, Kalenderer O, Karap?nar L, Kumbaraci M, Akkan HA, Agus H. Which factor is most important for occurrence of cutout complications in patients treated with proximal femoral nail antirotation? Retrospective analysis of 298 patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016; 136 (5): 623-630.

  6. Lorich DG, Geller DS, Nielson JH. Osteoporotic pertrochanteric hip fractures: management and current controversies. Instr Course Lect. 2004; 53: 441-454.

  7. Wu CC, Shih CH, Chen WJ, Tai CL. Treatment of cutout of a lag screw of a dynamic hip screw in an intertrochanteric fracture. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1998; 117 (4-5): 193-196.

  8. Jang JH, Moon NH, Park KY. Arthroscopic management of intraarticular screw perforation after surgical treatment of an acetabular posterior wall fracture: a case report. Hip Pelvis. 2018; 30 (1): 60-64.

  9. Dallich AA, Rath E, Atzmon R, Radparvar JR, Fontana A, Sharfman Z et al. Chondral lesions in the hip: a review of relevant anatomy, imaging and treatment modalities. J Hip Preserv Surg. 2019; 6 (1): 3-15.

  10. Briggs KK, Bolia IK. Hip arthroscopy: an evidence-based approach. Lancet. 2018; 391 (10136): 2189-2190.

  11. Flecher X, Ollivier M, Parratte S. Artroscopia de cadera. EMC Técnicas Quirúrgicas en Ortopedia y Traumatología. 2018; 10 (3): 3-8.

  12. Oliver-Welsh L, Griffin JW, Meyer MA, Gitelis ME, Cole BJ. Deciding how best to treat cartilage defects. Orthopedics. 2016; 39 (6): 343-350.

  13. DePuy Synthes. TFN-ADVANCED™ Proximal Femoral Nailing System (TFNA). Surgical Technique. [Consultada 27/10/2020]. Disponible en: https://www.jnjmedicaldevices.com/en-EMEA/product/tfn-advanced-proximal-femoral-nailing-system




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com