European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery

, Volume 43, Issue 6, pp 853–861 | Cite as

The challenge of non-union in subtrochanteric fractures with breakage of intramedullary nail: evaluation of outcomes in surgery revision with angled blade plate and allograft bone strut

  • G. Rollo
  • N. Tartaglia
  • G. Falzarano
  • P. Pichierri
  • A. Stasi
  • A. Medici
  • L. Meccariello
Original Article



Subtrochanteric fractures have a bimodal age distribution. They usually require open reduction and internal fixation. Closed reduction and intramedullary nail fixation rate are increased for this type of fracture. As a result, the hardware breakage and non-union rate is high among such patients. Our purpose is to evaluate the outcomes of the role of blade plate and bone strut allograft in the management of subtrochanteric non-union by femoral nailing.

Materials and methods

We reported a group of 22 patients with subtrochanteric non-union, associated with breakage of the intramedullary nail with medial femoral allograft bone and lateral blade plate and wire (PS) s; and a group of 13 patients with subtrochanteric non-union, associated with breakage of the intramedullary nail treated with lateral blade plate and screws (CG). The chosen criteria to evaluate the two group during the clinical and radiological follow-up were the quality of life, measured by The Short Form (12) Health Survey (SF-12), the hip function and quality of life related to it, measured by the Harris Hip Score (HHS), bone healing, measured by Radiographic Union Score (RUS) by XR and CT at 1 year after the surgery, and postoperative complications. The evaluation endpoint was set at 12 months.


The Bone healing measured by RUS occurred and also the full recovery before the first trauma measured by SF-12 and HHS are better in PS group. We only had three unimportant complications in PS while four breakage hardware in CG.


We conclude that in complicated non-unions, the use of blade plate and bone strut allograft has a definite positive role in the management of such cases.


Subtrochanteric complications Nail breakage Blade plate Allograft bone strut Non union Bone healing 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors disclose any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence (bias) their work. Examples of potential conflicts of interest includes employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding.

Human and animal right

For this type of study is not required any statement relating to studies on humans and animals. All patients gave the informed consent prior being included into the study. All procedures involving human participants were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.


  1. 1.
    Handoll HH, Parker MJ. Conservative versus operative treatment for hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;(3):CD000337. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000337.pub2.
  2. 2.
    Lix LM, Quail J, Teare G, Acan B. Performance of comorbidity measures for predicting outcomes in population-based osteoporosis cohorts. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22(10):2633–43. doi: 10.1007/s00198-010-1516-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wee JL, Sathappan SS, Yeo MS, Low YP. Management of gamma nail breakage with bipolar hemi-arthroplasty. Singap Med J. 2009;50(1):e44–e7.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lorich DG, Geller DS, Nielson JH. Osteoporotic pertrochanteric hip fractures: management and current controversies. Instr Course Lect. 2004;53:441–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bernstein J, Ahn J: Provider factors associated with intramedullary nail use for intertrochanteric hip fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(15):2619.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anglen JO, Weinstein JN, American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Research Committee: Nail or plate fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: changing pattern of practice. A review of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Database. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(4):700–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maniscalco P, Rivera F, D’Ascola J, Del Vecchio EO. Failure of intertrochanteric nailing due to distal nail jamming. J Orthop Traumatol. 2013;14(1):71–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yeo I, Rhyu KH, Kim SM, Park YS, Lim SJ. High union rates of locking compression plating with cortical strut allograft for type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures. Int Orthop. 2016. doi: 10.1007/s00264-015-3107-x.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burnei C, Popescu G, Barbu D, Capraru F. Intramedullary osteosynthesis versus plate osteosynthesis in subtrochanteric fractures. J Med Life. 2011;14(4):324–9.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Salomone C, Burastero G, Rita A, Felli L, Biasibetti A. Nonunions in diaphyseal fractures. Lo Scalpello. 2015;29:44–8. doi: 10.1007/s11639-015-0102-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Calori GM, Colombo M, Mazza EL, Mazzola S, Malagoli E, Marelli N, Corradi A. Validation of the Non-Union Scoring System in 300 long bone non-unions. Injury. 2014;45 (Suppl 6):S93–7. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2014.10.030.
  12. 12.
    Dettoni F, Pellegrino P, La Russa MR, Bonasia DE, Blonna D, Bruzzone M, Castoldi F, Rossi R. Validation and cross cultural adaptation of the Italian version of the Harris Hip Score. Hip Int. 2015;25(1):91–7. doi: 10.5301/hipint.5000184.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Litrenta J, Tornetta P 3rd, Mehta S, Jones C, OʼToole RV, Bhandari M, Kottmeier S, Ostrum R, Egol K, Ricci W, Schemitsch E, Horwitz D. Determination of radiographic healing: an assessment of consistency using RUST and modified RUST in metadiaphyseal fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2015;29(11):516–20. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000390.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Iwakura T, Niikura T, Lee SY, Sakai Y, Nishida K, Kuroda R, Kurosaka M. Breakage of a third generation gamma nail: a case report and review of the literature. Case Rep Orthop. 2013;2013:172352. doi: 10.1155/2013/172352.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu P, Wu X, Shi H, Liu R, Shu H, Gong J, Yang Y, Sun Q, Wu J, Nie X, Cai M. Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation in the management of subtrochanteric femur fractures: a meta-analysis. Clin Interv Aging. 2015;10:803–11. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S82119.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liu W, Zhou D, Liu F, Weaver MJ, Vrahas MS. Mechanical complications of intertrochanteric hip fractures treated with trochanteric femoral nails. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;75(2):304–10. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31829a2c43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chang SM, Zhang YQ, Ma Z, Li Q, Dargel J, Eysel P. Fracture reduction with positive medial cortical support: a key element in stability reconstruction for the unstable pertrochanteric hip fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015;135(6):811–8. doi: 10.1007/s00402-015-2206-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barquet A. The treatment of subtrochanteric nonunions with the long gamma nail: twenty-six patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Orthop Trauma. 2005;19(4):294.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wirtz C, Abbassi F, Evangelopoulos DS, Kohl S, Siebenrock KA, Krüger A. High failure rate of trochanteric fracture osteosynthesis with proximal femoral locking compression plate. Injury. 2013;44(6):751–6. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2013.02.020.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saini P, Kumar R, Shekhawat V, Joshi N, Bansal M, Kumar S. Biological fixation of comminuted subtrochanteric fractures with proximal femur locking compression plate. Injury. 2013;44(2):226–31. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2012.10.037.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    D’Arrigo C, Perugia D, Carcangiu A, Monaco E, Speranza A, Ferretti A. Hip arthroplasty for failed treatment of proximal femoral fractures. Int Orthop. 2010;34(7):939–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tomás Hernández J, Holck K. Periprosthetic femoral fractures: When I use strut grafts and why? Injury. 2015;46(Suppl 5):S43–6. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.08.012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peters CL, Bachus KN, Davitt JS. Fixation of periprosthetic femur fractures: a biomechanical analysis comparing cortical strut allograft plates and conventional metal plates. Orthopedics. 2003;26(7):695–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Choi JK, Gardner TR, Yoon E, Morrison TA, Macaulay WB, Geller JA. The effect of fixation technique on the stiffness of comminuted Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femur fractures. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(6 Suppl):124–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carta S, Fortina M, Riva A, Meccariello L, Manzi M, Di Giovanni A, Paolo Ferrata. The biological metallic versus metallic solution in treating periprosthetic femoral fractures: outcome assessment. Adv Med. 2016. doi: 10.1155/2016/2918735.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang J-W, Wang C-J. Supracondylar fractures of the femur above total knee arthroplasties with cortical allograft struts. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17(3):365–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pelet S, Arlettaz Y, Chevalley F. Osteosynthesis of per- and subtrochanteric fractures by blade plate versus gamma nail. A randomized prospective study. Swiss Surg. 2001;7(3):126–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bartonicek J, Skala-Rosenbaum J, Dousa P. Valgus intertrochanteric osteotomy for malunion and nonunion of trochanteric fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2003;17(9):606–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Rollo
    • 1
  • N. Tartaglia
    • 2
  • G. Falzarano
    • 3
  • P. Pichierri
    • 1
  • A. Stasi
    • 1
  • A. Medici
    • 3
  • L. Meccariello
    • 1
  1. 1.U.O.C. Orthopedics and TraumatologyVito Fazzi HospitalLecceItaly
  2. 2.U.O.C. Orthopedics and TraumatologyHospital MiulliAcqua Viva delle FontiItaly
  3. 3.U.O.C. Orthopedics and Traumatology, Department of EmergencyAzienda Ospedaliera Gaetano RummoBeneventoItaly

Personalised recommendations