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
- 1.1k Downloads
To describe the quality of osteosynthesis after intertrochanteric fractures evaluation of tip apex distance (TAD) and position of the hip screw have been established. Furthermore, a slightly valgus fracture reduction has been suggested to reduce the risk of cut-out failure. However, uniform recommendations for optimal screw positioning and fracture reduction are still missing. The purpose of our study was to confirm potential risk factors for cut-out of hip screws of intertrochanteric fractures and to provide recommendations for practical clinical use.
A retrospective analysis of all patients with intertrochanteric fractures treated with a DHS or a gamma nail between January of 2007 and May of 2010 was performed at a level I trauma center.
Two hundred thirty-five patients with intertrochanteric fractures after intra- and extramedullary stabilization were analyzed. A TAD of more than 25 mm was demonstrated to be the most important factor for cut-out in stable and unstable fractures. Fracture reduction with a valgus NSA of 5–10° was associated with a trend towards a lower rate of screw cut-out while an anterior placement of the screw (Parker’s ratio index of <40) significantly increased cut-out incidence.
According to our results, the TAD should not exceed 25 mm in stable (AO/OTA A1) as well as unstable (AO/OTA A2) fractures. An increased anterior hip screw placement should be avoided while fracture reduction with a slight valgus Neck Shaft seems favorable.
KeywordsFracture Reduction Screw Placement Unstable Fracture Intertrochanteric Fracture Neck Shaft Angle
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Hartholt KA, van Beeck EF, Polinder S, van der Velde N, van Lieshout EM, Panneman MJ, van der Cammen TJ, Patka P (2011) Societal consequences of falls in the older population: injuries, healthcare costs, and long-term reduced quality of life. J Trauma 71(3):748–753. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181f6f5e5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Barton TM, Gleeson R, Topliss C, Greenwood R, Harries WJ, Chesser TJ (2010) A comparison of the long gamma nail with the sliding hip screw for the treatment of AO/OTA 31-A2 fractures of the proximal part of the femur: a prospective randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(4):792–798. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.I.00508 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J, Broderick JS, Creevey W, DeCoster TA, Prokuski L, Sirkin MS, Ziran B, Henley B, Audige L (2007) Fracture and dislocation classification compendium - 2007: orthopaedic trauma association classification, database and outcomes committee. J Orthop Trauma 21(10 Suppl):S1–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Agresti A, Caffo B (2000) Simple and effective confidence intervals for proportions and differences of proportions result from adding two successes and two failures. The Am Stat 54(4):280–288Google Scholar
- 25.Marmor M, Nystuen C, Ehemer N, McClellan RT, Matityahu A (2011) Accuracy of in situ neck-shaft angle and shortening measurements of the anatomically reduced, varus malreduced and shortened proximal femur: can we believe what we see on the postoperative films? Injury. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2011.10.010