medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-8036 (Electronic)
ISSN 2306-4102 (Print)
Órgano Oficial del Colegio Mexicano de Ortopedia y Traumatología

2017, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Acta Ortop Mex 2017; 31 (4)

Factor associated in the failure of the ostheosyntesis of transtrocantheric fractures

Aguilar-Alcalá LA, Atri-Levy J, Torres-Gómez A, Ochoa-Olvera L

Language: Spanish
References: 21
Page: 189-195
PDF size: 251.60 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Pertrochanteric fractures account approximately a half of the proximal femoral fractures. Incidence of these fractures is highest in women, age › 65 years and presents a mortality rate of 14 to 50%. Treatment goals include stable fixation, immediate mobilization and restore activities. Complications after treatment present in 17% and include: nonunion, cut out and varus displacement. Objective: Correlation between complications after surgical treatment and presence of instability, inadequate reduction, Tip Apex Index (TAI) › 25 mm, Tip Apex Index to calcar (TAIcal) › 20 mm and parker index. Material and methods: A case control study was conducted in patients with pertrochanteric fractures treated between January 2009 and December 2014, 91 patients were included and complications were measured up to 6 months after surgery. Results: 27 patients were included in group 1, which were the ones who presented complications. Values of TAI measured in this group were 13.7 to 45 mm, and were significantly higher than group 2. Position of the blade/screw central in the lateral view and inferior in the AP view didn´t present complications. Conclusions: We found 27 patients with complications in the follow up (29%). Initial reduction and stability is determinant to success. We recommend the use of proximal femoral nail in all unstable fractures. It is confirmed that TAI › 25 mm as a predictor of failure.


REFERENCES

  1. http://www3.inegi.org.mx/sistemas/sisept/Default.aspx?t=mdemo129&s=est&c=23598

  2. http://cuentame.inegi.org.mx/impresion/poblacion/esperanza.asp

  3. Lindskog DM, Baumaertner MR: Unstable intertrochanteric hip fractures in the elderly. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2004; 12(3): 179-90.

  4. Kashigar A, Vincent A, Gunton MJ, Backstein D, Safir O, Kuzyk PR: Predictors of failure for cephalomedullary nailing of proximal femoral fractures. Bone Joint J. 2014; 96-B(8): 1029-34.

  5. Lorich DG, Geller DS, Nielson JH: Osteoporotic pertrochanteric hip fractures: management and current controversies. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86(2): 398-410.

  6. Tawari AA, Kempegowda H, Suk M, Horwitz DS: What makes an intertrochanteric fracture unstable in 2015? Does the lateral wall play a role in the decision matrix? J Orthop Trauma. 2015; 29: S4-S9.

  7. Dziadosz D: Considerations with failed intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric femur fractures: how to treat, revise, and replace. J Orthop Trauma. 2015; 29: S17-S21.

  8. Roberts KC, Brox WT, Jevsevar DS, Sevarino K: Management of hip fractures in the elderly. AAOS Clinical Practice Guideline Summary. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2015; 23(2): 131-7.

  9. Zhang K, Zhang S, Yang J, Dong W, Wang S, Cheng Y, et al: Proximal femoral nail vs dynamic hip screw in treatment of intertrochanteric fractures: a meta-analysis. Med Sci Monit. 2014; 20: 1628-33.

  10. Shen L, Zhang Y, Shen Y, Cui Z: Antirotational proximal femoral nail versus dynamic hip screw for intertrochanteric fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013; 99(4): 307-83.

  11. Koval KJ, Zuckerman JD: Hip fractures: II. Evaluation and treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1994; 2: 150-6.

  12. Kubiak EN, Bong M, Park SS, Kuer F, Egol K, Koval KJ: Intramedullary fixation of unstable intertrochanteric hip fractures: one or two lag screws. J Orthop Trauma. 2004; 18(1): 12-7.

  13. Paul O, Barker JU, Lane JM, Helfet DL, Lorich DG: Functional and radiographic outcomes of intertrochanteric hip fractures treated with calcar reduction, compression, and trochanteric entry nailing. J Orthop Trauma. 2012; 26(3): 148-54.

  14. Kaplan K, Miyamoto R, Levine BR, Egol KA, Zuckerman JD: Surgical management of hip fractures: an evidence-based review of the literature. II: intertrochanteric fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008; 16(11): 665-73.

  15. Siwach RC, Rohilla R, Singh R, Singla R, Sangwan SS, Gogna P: Radiological and functional outcome in unstable, osteoporotic fractures stabilized with dynamic helical hip system. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2013; 8(2): 117-22.

  16. Saudan M, Lübbeke A, Sadowski C, Riand N, Stern R, Hoffmeyer P: Pertrochanteric fractures: is there an advantage to an intramedullary nail? A randomized, prospective study of 206 patients comparing the dynamic hip screw and proximal femoral nail. J Orthop Trauma. 2002; 16(6): 386-93.

  17. Sommers MB, Roth C, Hall H, Kam BC, Ehmke LW, Krieg JC, et al: A laboratory model to evaluate cutout resistance of implants for pertrochanteric fracture fixation. J Orthop Trauma. 2004; 18(6): 361-8.

  18. Parmar V, Kumar S, Aster A, Harper WH: Review of methods to qualify lag screw placement in hip fracture fixation. Acta Orthop Belg. 2005; 71(3): 260-3.

  19. Andruszkow H, Frink M, Frömke C, Matityahu A, Zeckey C, Mommsen P, et al: Tip apex distance, hip screw placement, and neck shaft angle as potential risk factors for cut-out failure of hip screws after surgical treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. Int Orthop. 2012; 36(11): 2347-54.

  20. Güven M, Yavuz U, Kadioğlu B, Akman B, Kilinçoğlu V, Unay K: Importance of screw position in intertrochanteric femoral fractures treated by dynamic hip screw. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2010; 96: 21-7.

  21. Palm H, Krasheninnikoff M, Holck K, Lemser T, Foss NB, Jacobsen S, et al: A new algorithm for hip fracture surgery. Reoperation rate reduced from 18% to 12% en 2,000 consecutive patients followed for 1 year. Acta Orthop. 2012; 83(1): 26-30.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com