Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Pertrochanteric fractures: tips and tricks in nail osteosynthesis

  • Review Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Intramedullary fixation of intertrochanteric fractures has become the standard method of fixation especially in unstable fracture types. Even though there have been developments on implant design and technology, the surgical technique of reduction and implant positioning remains the mandatory factor in treating these fractures successfully. The advantages of nailing in the mainly elderly patients sustaining intertrochanteric femur fractures are a short lever arm and a lateral support in the trochanter supplied by the nail. The disadvantages are that it is often harder to achieve a closed reduction of a displaced fracture and to maintain the reduction with the intramedullary implant.

Tips and tricks

To obtain and maintain anatomic reduction and a secure fracture fixation, the surgical approach and fixation technique is of great importance. It starts with correct patient positioning, fracture reduction (accounting for varus dislocation and dislocation of flexed fragments), choosing the correct nail entry point and perfect lag screw positioning within the head-neck fragment and distal locking. To maintain the reduction achieved intraoperatively, the decision has to be made to use a cerclage wiring or to tolerate fracture gaps in the metaphyseal area. Intraoperative controlled compression of the neck or the subtrochanteric area is of great importance to reduce delayed unions or nonunions.

Summary

Intramedullary fixation of unstable per-, inter- or subtrochanteric fractures shows biomechanical advantages compared to extramedullry fixation techniques. Even though there have been several amendments and developments of implants, a better implant does not compensate for an inadequate surgical approach or deficient surgical techniques which are paramount for successful treatment. When fixing fractures with intramedullary nailing systems, the surgeon should always try to achieve anatomic reduction and a perfect implant positioning to allow immediate full weight bearing without an increased risk of cut-out, non-union and implant failure.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Zickel RE. A new fixation device for subtrochanteric fractures of the femur: a preliminary report. Clin Orthop. 1967;54:115–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Zickel RE. An intramedullary fixation device for the proximal part of the femur: 9 years’ experience. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 1976;58:866–72.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Harder SC. The Gamma nail for peritrochanteric fractures. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 1955;37:693–8.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Anglen JO, Weinstein JN. Nail or plate fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: changing pattern of pratice. A review of the American board of orthopaedic surgery database. J Bone Surg Am. 2008;90:700–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Guyer P, Landolt M, Eberle C, et al. The Gamma-nail as a resilient alternative to the dynamic hip screw in unstable proximal femoral fractures in the elderly. Helv Chir Acta. 1992;58:697–703.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Harrington P, Nihal A, Singhania AK, et al. Intramedullary hip screw versus sliding hip screw for unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures in the elderly. Injury. 2002;33:23–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Leung KS, Chen CM, So WS, et al. Multicenter trial of modified Gamma nail in East Asia. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;323:146–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Osnes EK, Lofthus CM, Falch JA, et al. More postoperative femoral fractures with the Gamma nail than the sliding screw plate in the treatment of trochanteric fractures. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001;72:252–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Simmermacher RK, Bosch AM, van der Werken C. The AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail (PFN): a new device for the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures. Injury. 1999;30:327–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Orthopaedic trauma association committee for coding and classification. Fracture and dislocation compendium. J Orthop Trauma. 1996;10(Suppl 1):1–154.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Barquet A, Francescoli L, Rienzi D, et al. Intertrochanteric/subtrochanteric fractures: treatment with the long Gamma nail. J Orthop Trauma. 2000;14:324–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM, Keggi JM. The value of the tip-apex distance in predicting failure of fixation of peritrochanteric fractures of the hip. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 1995;77:1058–64.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. McLaurin TM, Lawler EA. Treatment modalities for subtrochanteric fractures in the elderly. Tech Orthop. 2004;19(3):197–213.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Radford PJ, Needoff M, Webb JK. A prospective randomised comparison of the dynamic hip screw and the Gamma locking nail. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 1993;75:789–93.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Aune AK, Ekeland A, Odegaard B, et al. Gamma nail vs. compression screw for trochanteric femoral fractures: fifteen re-operations in a prospective randomized study of three hundred and seventy eight patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 1994;65:127–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Docquier PL, Manche E, Autrique JC, et al. Complications associated with gamma nailing: a review of 439 cases. Acta Orthop Belg. 2002;68:251–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sadowski C, Lubbeke A, Saudan M, et al. Treatment of reverse and transverse intertrochanteric fractures with use of an intramedullary nail or 95 degree screw-plate: a prospective, randomized study. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2002;84:372–81.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hotz TK, Zellweger R, Kach KP. Minimal invasive treatment of proximal femur fractures with the long Gamma nail: indication, technique, results. J Trauma. 1999;47:942–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Valverde JA, Alonso MG, Porro JG, et al. Use of the Gamma nail in the treatment of fractures of the proximal femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;350:56–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. H. Ruecker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ruecker, A.H., Rueger, J.M. Pertrochanteric fractures: tips and tricks in nail osteosynthesis. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 40, 249–264 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-013-0366-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-013-0366-3

Keywords

Navigation