Advertisement

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 472, Issue 9, pp 2745–2750 | Cite as

Assessing Leg Length After Fixation of Comminuted Femur Fractures

  • Dolfi HerscoviciJr
  • Julia M. Scaduto
Symposium: Femoral Fractures: Contemporary Treatment Approaches

Abstract

Background

Nailing comminuted femur fractures may result in leg shortening, producing significant complications including pelvic tilt, narrowing of the hip joint space, mechanical and functional changes in gait, an increase in energy expenditures, and strains on spinal ligaments, leading to spinal deformities. The frequency of this complication in patients managed with an intramedullary (IM) nail for comminuted diaphyseal fractures is unknown.

Questions/purposes

We therefore determined (1) the frequency of LLDs, (2) whether a specific fracture pattern was associated with LLDs, (3) the frequency of reoperation, and (4) whether revision fixation ultimately corrected the LLD.

Methods

We studied 83 patients with 91 AO/OTA Type B or Type C fractures fixed with either an antegrade or retrograde IM nail from July 2002 through December 2005. There were 60 males and 23 females, with a mean age of 30 years (range, 15–79 years). All underwent a digitized CT scan in the immediate postoperative period. Measurements of both legs were performed. Any fixation producing a discrepancy and requiring a return to surgery was identified.

Results

An mean LLD of 0.58 cm was found in 98% of the patients, but only six (7%) patients had an LLD of greater than 1.25 cm. No fracture pattern or the presentation of bilateral injuries demonstrated a greater incidence of LLD. Of the patients with LLD, two patients refused further surgery while the remaining four patients, two Type B and two Type C fractures, ultimately underwent revision fixation. Repeat CT scans after revision surgery of all four patients demonstrated a residual LLD of only 0.2 cm.

Conclusions

Postoperative CT scans appear to be an efficient method to measure femoral length after IM nailing. Although residual LLDs may be common in comminuted femurs treated with IM nails, most LLDs do not appear to be functionally relevant. When an LLD of greater than 1.5 cm is identified, it should be discussed with the patient, who should be told that potential complications may occur with larger LLDs and that sometimes patients may benefit from repeat surgery.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Keywords

Femur Fracture Pelvic Tilt Diaphyseal Femur Fracture Bilateral Injury Cortical Contact 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Aaron A, Weinstein D, Thickman D, Eilert R. Comparison of orthoroentgenography and computed tomography in the measurement of limb-length discrepancy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74:897–902.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Canadian Orthopaedic Society. Nonunion following intramedullary nailing of the femur with and without reaming: results of a multicenter randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:2093–2096.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Edeen J, Sharkey PF, Alexander AH. Clinical significance of leg-length inequality after total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop. 1995;24:347–351.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Friberg O. Leg length asymmetry in stress fractures: a clinical and radiological study. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1982;22:485–488.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Friberg O. Clinical symptoms and biomechanics of lumbar spine and hip joint in leg length inequality. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1983;8:643–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Giles LG, Taylor JR. Low-back pain associated with leg length inequality. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1981;6:510–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grill F, Chochole M, Schultz A. [Pelvic tilt and leg length discrepancy] [in German]. Orthopade. 1990;19:244–262.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grützner P, Hochstein P, Simon R, Wentzensen A. [Determination of torsion angle after shaft fractures of the lower extremity—clinical relevance and measurement techniques] [in German]. Chirurg. 1999;70:276–284.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gurney B, Mermier C, Robergs R, Gibson A, Rivero D. Effects of limb-length discrepancy on gait economy and lower-extremity muscle activity in older adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:907–915.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gustillo RB, Mendoza RM, Williams DN. Problems in the management of type III (severe) open fractures: a new classification of type III open fractures. J Trauma. 1984;24:742–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harris I, Hatfield A, Walton J. Assessing leg length discrepancy after femoral fracture: clinical examination or computed tomography? ANZ J Surg. 2005;75:319–321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hüfner T, Kendoff D, Citak M, Geerling J, Krettek C. [Precision in orthopedic computer navigation] [in German]. Orthopade. 2006;35:1043–1055.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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;125:184–187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johnson EE. Acute lengthening of shortened lower extremities after malunion or non-union of a fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994;76:379–389.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karapinar L, Kaya A, Oztürk H, Altay T, Kayali C. Leg length discrepancies in adult femoral shaft fractures treated with intramedullary nailing. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2009;15:256–261.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaufman KR, Miller LS, Sutherland DH. Gait asymmetry in patients with limb-length inequality. J Pediat Orthop. 1996;16:144–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Konermann W, Gruber G. Ultrasound determination of leg length. Orthopade. 2002;31:300–305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krettek C, Miclau T, Grün O, Schandelmaier P, Tscherne H. Intraoperative control of axes, rotation and leg length in femoral and tibial fractures: technical note. Injury. 1998;29(suppl 3):S-C29–S-C39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Langer JS, Gardner MJ, Ricci WM. The cortical step sign as a tool for assessing and correcting rotational deformity in femoral shaft fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2010;24:82–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leitzes AH, Potter HG, Amaral T, Marx RG, Lyman S, Widman RF. Reliability and accuracy of MRI scanogram in the evaluation of limb length discrepancy. J Pediatr Orthop. 2005;25:747–749.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liodakis E, Kenawey M, Liodaki E, Mommsen P, Krettek, C, Hankemeier S. The axis-board: an alternative to the cable technique for intraoperative assess of lower limb alignment. Techol Health Care. 2010;18:165–171.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J, Broderick JS, Creevey W, DeCoster TA, Prokuski L, Sirkin MS, Ziran B, Henley B, Audigé L. Fracture and Dislocation Classification Compendium-2007. J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21(suppl 10):S35–S38.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Owens WD, Felts JA. ASA physical status classification: a study of consistency ratings. Anesthesiology. 1978;49:239–243.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sabharwal S, Kumar A. Methods for assessing leg length discrepancy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:2910–2922.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shih-Chieh H, Takahide K, Kozo N, Takashi M, Shiro R, Okazaki H. Narrowing of the joint space of the hip after traumatic shortening of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78:718–721.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Siffert RS. Lower limb-length discrepancy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69:1100–1106.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Song KT, Halliday SE, Little DG. The effect of limb-length discrepancy on gait. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:1690–1698.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Strecker W, Keppler P, Gebhard F, Kinzl L. Length and torsion of the lower limb. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79:1019–1023.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Subotnick SI. Limb length discrepancies of the lower extremity (the short leg syndrome). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1981;3:11–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Suger G, Liener U, Schmelz A, Kinzl L. [Correction of post-traumatic diaphyseal malalignment of the lower extremity] [in German]. Chirurg. 1998;69:1167–1177.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vink P, Huson A. Lumbar back muscle activity during walking with a leg inequality. Acta Morphol Neerl Scand. 1987;25:261–271.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vink P, Kamphuisen HA. Leg length inequality, pelvic tilt and lumbar back muscles activity during standing. Clin Biomech. 1989;4:115–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    White SC, Gilchrist LA, Wilk BE. Asymmetric limb loading with true or simulated leg-length differences. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;421:287–292.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Florida Orthopaedic InstituteTemple TerraceUSA

Personalised recommendations