Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 71–76 | Cite as

Intramedullary fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: a comparison of two implant designs

  • Nicolas E. Efstathopoulos
  • Vassilios S. Nikolaou
  • John T. Lazarettos
Original Paper

Abstract

We report a randomised prospective study comparing two implants, the Gamma trochanteric nail and the ACE trochanteric nail, in the treatment of intertrochanteric femoral fractures in the elderly. One hundred and twelve patients were randomised on admission into two treatment groups. Fifty-six patients were treated with Gamma nail implants, and 56 were treated with ACE trochanteric nail. The average age of these patients was 78 years. Twenty fractures were stable and 92 unstable. The mean follow-up time was 8 months (6 –12). Regular clinical and radiological review was done 1, 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Operation time, fluoroscopy time, blood transfusion and complications were recorded. The mobility score was used to assess the pre-injury and postoperative mobility status. All the patients were treated within 36 h of their accident. There were no complications during surgery. All the patients were mobilised in the first 24 h postoperatively, regardless of the fracture type, and weight bearing was permitted as tolerated. Union of the fracture was achieved in all patients. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups with regard to the studied parameters. There was no mechanical failure of the implants despite the early patient mobilisation. Early operation and early mobilisation resulted in a good functional outcome in all patients. Both the trochanteric gamma nail and ACE trochanteric nail provide effective methods of treatment for intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients.

Keywords

Mobility Status Fluoroscopy Time Intertrochanteric Fracture Gamma Nail Mobility Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Résumé

nous rapportons une étude randomisée prospective comparant deux implants : le clou gamma et le clou ACE dans le traitement des fractures inter trochantériennes fémorales chez les sujets âgés. Cent douze patients ont été randomisés à l’admission avec deux groupes de traitement; 56 patients ont été traités avec le clou gamma et 56 avec le clou ACE. L’âge moyen de ces patients est de 78 ans. Vingt fractures étaient stables, 92 instables. Le suivi moyen était de 8 mois (6 à 12 mois). Une surveillance clinique et radiographique a été réalisée à 1,3 et 6 mois post-opératoire. Le temps opératoire, le temps d’amplificateur de brillance, la transfusion sanguine, le taux de transfusion sanguine et les complications ont été rapportés. La mobilité pré traumatique des patients et le statut d’indépendance post-opératoire ont été rapportés. Tous les patients ont été opérés dans les 36h00 après l’accident. Il n’y a aucune complication durant la chirurgie. Tous les patients ont été mobilisés à 24h00 post-opératoire quels que soient le type de fractures et l’appui a été autorisé. La consolidation de la fracture a été obtenue chez tous les patients. Il n’y a pas de différence significative entre les deux groupes. Il n’y a pas eu de problèmes mécaniques sur les implants, malgré la mobilisation précoce des patients. Une opération précoce et une mobilisation précoce entraînent un bon résultat et un bon devenir chez ces patients. Les deux clous, gamma ou ACE représentent une méthode effective du traitement des fractures inter-trochantérienne chez les sujets âgés.

References

  1. 1.
    Doppelt SH (1980) The sliding compression screw-Today’s best answer for stabilization of intertrochanteric hip fractures. Orthop Clin North Am 11:507–523PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    O’Brien PJ, Meek RN, Blachut PA et al (1995) Fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: gamma nail versus dynamic hip screw. A randomized, prospective study. Can J Surg 38:516–520PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Radford PJ, Needoff M, Webb JK (1993) A prospective randomized comparison of the dynamic hip screw and the Gamma locking nail. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75B:789–793Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wolfgang GL, Bryant MH, O’Neill JP (1982) Treatment of intertrochanteric fracture of the femur using sliding screw plate fixation. Clin Orthop 163:148–158PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Simpson AHRW, Varty K, Dodd CAF (1989) Sliding hip screws: Modes of failure. Injury 20:227–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rebuzzi E, Pannone A, Schiavetti S, Santoriello P, de Nicola U, Fancellu G, Cau P, Gulli S, Dordolin P, Maniscalco P, Morici F, Commessatti M, Pozzi-Mucelli M, Maiorana CS, Bassini F (2002) IMHS clinical experience in the treatment of peritrochanteric fractures. The results of a multicentric Italian study of 981 cases. Injury. Jun;33(5):407–412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sadowski C, Lubbeke A, Saudan M et al (2002) Treatment of reverse and transverse intertrochanteric fractures with use of an intramedullary nail or 95 degrees screw-plate: a prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84A:372–381Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Madsen JE, Naess L, Aune AK, Alho A, Ekeland A, Stromsoe K (1998) Dynamic hip screw with trochanteric stabilizing plate in the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures: a comparative study with the Gamma nail and compression hip screw. J Orthop Trauma 12:241–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Butt MS, Krikler SJ, Nafie S, Ali MS (1995) Comparison of dynamic hip screw and gamma nail: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Injury 26:615–618PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fogagnolo F, Kfuri M Jr, Paccola CA (2004) Intramedullary fixation of pertrochanteric hip fractures with the short AO-ASIF proximal femoral nail. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 124(1):31–7. Epub 2003 Sep, JanPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harrington P, Nihal A, Singhania AK, Howell FR (2002) Intramedullary hip screw versus sliding hip screw for unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures in the elderly. Injury 33(1):23–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jensen JS (1980) Classification of trochanteric fractures. Acta Orthop Scand 51:803–810PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    American Society of Anesthesiologists (1963) New classification of physical status. Anesthesiology 24:111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Parker MJ, Palmer CR (1993) A new mobility score for predicting mortality after hip fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75:797–798PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Doppelt SH (1980) The sliding compression screw-Today’s best answer for stabilization of intertrochanteric hip fractures. Orthop Clin North Am 11:507–523PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sadowski C, Lubbeke A, Saudan M et al (2002) Treatment of reverse and transverse intertrochanteric fractures with use of an intramedullary nail or 95 degrees screw-plate: a prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84A:372–381Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Adams CI, Robinson CM, Court-Brown CM, McQueen MM (2001) Prospective randomized controlled trial of an intramedullary nail versus dynamic screw and plate for intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Orthop Trauma 15(6):394–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hardy DCR, Descamps PY, Krallis P, Fabeck L, Smets P, Bertens CL, Delince PE (1998) Use of an intramedullary hip screw compared with a compression hip screw with a plate for intertrochanteric femoral fractures. A prospective, randomized study of one hundred patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80:618–630PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM (1998) Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation for the treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res (348):87–94 MarPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zickel RE (1967) A new fixation device for subtrochanteric fractures of the femur: preliminary report. Clin Orthop 54:115–123PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Haynes RC, Poll RG, Miles AW et al (1997) Failure of femoral head fixation: a cadaveric analysis of lag screw cut-out with the Gamma locking nail and AO dynamic hip screw. Injury 28:337–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shaw JA, Wilson S (1993) Internal fixation of proximal femur fractures: a biomechanical comparison of the Gamma locking nail and the omega compression hip screw. Orthop Rev 22:61–68PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lacroix H, Arwert H, Snijders CJ et al (1995) Prevention of fracture at the distal locking site of the Gamma nail: a biomechanical study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 77B:274–276Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Siegmeth AW, Gurusamy K, Parker MJ (2005) Delay to surgery prolongs hospital stay in patients with fractures of the proximal femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(8):1123–1126 AugPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Perez JV, Warwick DJ, Case CP, Bannister GC (1995) Death after proximal femoral fracture-an autopsy study. Injury 26:237–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicolas E. Efstathopoulos
    • 1
  • Vassilios S. Nikolaou
    • 1
  • John T. Lazarettos
    • 1
  1. 1.Orthopaedic DepartmentAthens University, “Agia Olga” HospitalAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations