Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A preliminary clinical evaluation of the “greater trochanter-head contact point” method for the intraoperative torsional control of femoral fractures

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Orthopaedic Science

Abstract

Purpose

In a previous study, our group introduced a simple non-invasive method for the intraoperative control of femoral torsion during closed nailing of femoral fractures using the shape of the greater trochanter and its relation to the femoral head. The aim of this study was to verify the results of our cadaveric study and transfer them into a clinical setup. We answered the questions: [1] How much time is needed to perform the greater trochanter-head contact point method (GT-HCP)? [2]. How long is the radiation time?

Methods

We examined 15 patients with femoral shaft fractures, to evaluate the GT-HCP method in a clinical setup. Using a standard fluoroscopic image intensifier (Ziehm, Erlangen, Germany), the greater trochanter-head contact angle was measured for both sides. All patients received a postoperative computer tomography (CT) to check the rotational malalignment. The mean of the CT results was then compared to the measurements of the GT-HCP method. The examiners performing the CT measurements were not aware of the GT-HCP results and vice versa.

Results

No statistical significance could be detected between the CT and the GT-HCP method (p = 0.853). Eleven patients had very good results (≤5°), three had good results (6–10°) and one had poor results (>10°). The mean difference between CT and GT-HCP method was 3.7 ± 3.3°, which is acceptable. The radiation dose needed for the method was not large (0.2 ± 0.1 min), and could be lowered with the gaining experience of the examiners. Similarly, the overall time needed (12.1 ± 4.9 min) for the GT-HCP method could be reduced with the experience of the team.

Conclusion

Our study showed that the GT-HCP method is a precise and not particularly time consuming method for controlling anteversion during closed femoral nailing. Further clinical trials including a larger number of patients are required to establish this method in clinical practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Braten M, Terjesen T, Rossvoll I. Femoral shaft fractures treated by intramedullary nailing. A follow-up study focusing on problems related to the method. Injury. 1995;26(6):379–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Krettek C, Rudolf J, Schandelmaier P, Guy P, Könnemann B, Tscherne H. Unreamed intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures: operative technique and early clinical experience with the standard locking option. Injury. 1996;27(4):233–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hawi N, Haentjes J, Suero EM, Liodakis E, Krettek C, Stübig T, Hüfner T, Citak M. Navigated femoral shaft fracture treatment: current status. Technol Health Care. 2012;20(1):65–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jaarsma RL, Ongkiehong BF, Groeneberg C, Verdonschot N, Duysens J, van Kampen A. Compensation for rotational malalignment after intramedullary nailing for femoral shaft fractures: an analysis by plantar pressure measurements during gait. Injury. 2004;35(12):1270–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Jaarsma RL, Pakvis DFM, Verdonschot N, Biert J, van Kampen A. Rotational malalignment after intramedullary nailing of femoral fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18(7):403.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Braten M, Terjesen T, Rossvoll I. Torsional deformity after intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures. Measurement of anteversion angles in 110 patients. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 1993;75(5):799.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hawi N, Liodakis E, O’Loughlin PF, Kabbani AR, Stüber V, Petri M, Stübig T, Krettek C, Citak M. Progress towards intra-operative measurement of femoral antetorsion. Technol Health Care. 2012;20(1):57–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Liodakis E, Kenawey M, Petri M, Zümrüt A, Hawi N, Krettek C, Citak M.Factors influencing neck anteversion during femoral nailing: a retrospective analysis of 220 torsion-difference CTs. Injury 2011;42(11):1342–5.

    Google Scholar 

  9. van Joost MC, Gastkemper RJ. Malrotation after femoral shaft fractures. Archivum chirurgicum Neerlandicum. 1972;24(2):101.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Paley D, Tetsworth K. Mechanical axis deviation of the lower limbs: preoperative planning of multiapical frontal plane angular and bowing deformities of the femur and tibia. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;280:65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Eckhoff DG. Effect of limb malrotation on malalignment and osteoarthritis. Orthop Clini North Am. 1994;25(3):405.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Citak M, Gardner MJ, Citak M, Krettek C, Hüfner T, Kendoff D. Navigated femoral anteversion measurements: a new intraoperative technique. Injury. 2008;39(4):467–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kendoff D, Citak M, Gardner MJ, Gösling T, Krettek C, Hüfner T. Navigated femoral nailing using noninvasive registration of the contralateral intact femur to restore anteversion. Technique and clinical use. J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21(10):725.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tornetta P, Ritz G, Kantor A. Femoral torsion after interlocked nailing of unstable femoral fractures. J Trauma. 1995;38(2):213.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Krettek C, Miclau T. Intraoperative control of axes, rotation and length in femoral and tibial fractures technical note. Injury. 1998;29:29–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhang Q, Liu H, Chen W, Li X, Song Z, Pan J, Zhang Y. Radiologic measurement of lesser trochanter and its clinical significance in Chinese. Skeletal Radiol. 2009;38(12):1175–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jaarsma RL, Verdonschot N, Van der Venne R, van Kampen A. Avoiding rotational malalignment after fractures of the femur by using the profile of the lesser trochanter: an in vitro study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2005;125(3):184–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Yang KH, Han DY, Jahng JS, Shin DE, Park JH. Prevention of malrotation deformity in femoral shaft fracture. J Orthop Trauma. 1998;12(8):558.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hilgert RE, Ohrendorf K, Schäfer FK, Schäfer PJ, Müller M, Trompetter R, Egbers HJ. Preventing malrotation during intramedullary nailing of femoral fractures. Der Unfallchirurg. 2006;109(10):855.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Liodakis E, Aljuneidi W, Krettek C, Ettinger M, Kenawey M. The neck-malleolar angle: an alternative method for measuring total lower limb torsion that considers the knee joint rotation angle. Skeletal Radiol. 2011;40(5):617–21.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hernandez RJ, Tachdjian MO, Poznanski AK, Dias LS. CT determination of femoral torsion. Am J Roentgenol. 1981;137(1):97.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Liodakis E, Doxastaki I, Chu K, Krettek C, Gaulke R, Citak M, Kenawey M.Reliability of the assessment of lower limb torsion using computed tomography: analysis of five different techniques. Skeletal Radiol. 2012;41(3):305–11.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Madan S, Blakeway C. Radiation exposure to surgeon and patient in intramedullary nailing of the lower limb. Injury. 2002;33(8):723–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

Each author certifies that he has no commercial associations (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Trauma Department, Hannover Medical School (MHH), Carl-Neuberg-Str 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany

    Max Ettinger, Alexander Maslaris, Mohamed Kenawey, Maximilian Petri, Christian Krettek, Michael Jagodzinski & Emmanouil Liodakis

Authors
  1. Max Ettinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexander Maslaris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohamed Kenawey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maximilian Petri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christian Krettek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michael Jagodzinski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Emmanouil Liodakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Max Ettinger.

Additional information

M. Ettinger and A. Maslaris contributed equally to this work

About this article

Cite this article

Ettinger, M., Maslaris, A., Kenawey, M. et al. A preliminary clinical evaluation of the “greater trochanter-head contact point” method for the intraoperative torsional control of femoral fractures. J Orthop Sci 17, 717–721 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-012-0277-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-012-0277-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation