Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The benefit of wire cerclage stabilisation of the medial hinge in intramedullary nailing for the treatment of subtrochanteric femoral fractures: a biomechanical study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Reduction and intramedullary fixation of subtrochanteric fractures is often challenging. Osteosynthesis frequently fails and a higher rate of non-unions is found. The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefit of an additional cerclage to anatomically reduce and support the medial hinge. The application is based on the experience of the surgeon; as yet no biomechanical data are available.

Methods

Ten pairs of human cadaveric femora were used to determine the biomechanical and clinical advantage of an additional cerclage. All femora were tested in a materials testing system after osteotomy, osteosynthesis with the Gamma III nail and randomisation into two groups with or without additional cerclage.

Results

After cyclic loading the compressive load to reach plastic deformation of 5 mm was 2,160 N on average in the group without cerclage vs 2,330 N on average in the group with cerclage. This biomechanical advantage showed no statistical significance (p = 0.2). Radiological examination when the abort criterion was reached revealed that use of the additional wire cerclage could significantly decrease the failure of osteosynthesis (100 vs 10%) after intramedullary nailing of subtrochanteric fractures (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

In view of the more invasive operative approach with additional soft tissue injuries, application of an additional cerclage should still be considered carefully. Nevertheless, a mini-open approach to difficult fractures could be helpful in reducing the fracture with a clamp and is sometimes essential. The damage to the soft tissue must be weighed against the benefits of the procedure. An additional cerclage in oblique subtrochanteric fractures is a good option to ensure the reposition and cortical medial support if appropriate and to decrease osteosynthesis failure and rates of non-unions.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Federal Statistical Office (2010) 11th coordinated projection of population, modification 1-W1

  2. BQS, Institute for Quality and Patient Safety

  3. Wheeler DL, Croy TJ, Woll TS, Scott MD, Senft DC, Duwelius PJ (1997) Comparison of reconstruction nails for high subtrochanteric femur fracture fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 338:231–239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Craig NJ, Sivaji C, Maffulli N (2001) Subtrochanteric fractures. A review of treatment options. Bull Hosp Jt Dis 60(1):35–46

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sims SH (2002) Subtrochanteric femur fractures. Orthop Clin North Am 33(1):113–126, viii

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Loizou CL, McNamara I, Ahmed K, Pryor GA, Parker MJ (2010) Classification of subtrochanteric femoral fractures. Injury 41(7):739–745

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Koch JC (1917) The laws of bone architecture. Am J Anat 21:177–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rosenblum SF, Zuckerman JD, Kummer FJ, Tam BS (1992) A biomechanical evaluation of the Gamma nail. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74(3):352–357

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Mahomed N, Harrington I, Kellam J, Maistrelli G, Hearn T, Vroemen J (1994) Biomechanical analysis of the Gamma nail and sliding hip screw. Clin Orthop Relat Res 304:280–288

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hajdu S, Vécsei V (2007) Intramedullary stabilization of proximal femoral fractures. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 33:141–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Taeger G, Schmid C, Zettl R, Schweiberer L, Nast-Kolb D (2000) Stable and unstable pertrochanteric femoral fractures. Differentiated indications for the dynamic hip screw (in German). Unfallchirurg 103(9):741–748

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bridle SH, Patel AD, Bircher M, Calvert PT (1991) Fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. A randomised prospective comparison of the gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73(2):330–334

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Heinz T, Vécsei V (1994) Complications and errors in use of the gamma nail. Causes and prevention (in German). Chirurg 65(11):943–952

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Leung KS, So WS, Shen WY, Hui PW (1992) Gamma nails and dynamic hip screws for peritrochanteric fractures. A randomised prospective study in elderly patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74(3):345–351

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Roberts CS, Nawab A, Wang M, Voor MJ, Seligson D (2002) Second generation intramedullary nailing of subtrochanteric femur fractures: a biomechanical study of fracture site motion. J Orthop Trauma 16(4):231–238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Curtis MJ, Jinnah RH, Wilson V, Cunningham BW (1994) Proximal femoral fractures: a biomechanical study to compare intramedullary and extramedullary fixation. Injury 25(2):99–104

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kummer FJ, Olsson O, Pearlman CA, Ceder L, Larsson S, Koval KJ (1998) Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation of subtrochanteric fractures. A biomechanical study. Acta Orthop Scand 69(6):580–584

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kraemer WJ, Hearn TC, Powell JN, Mahomed N (1996) Fixation of segmental subtrochanteric fractures. A biomechanical study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 332:71–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lahoud JC, Asselineau A, Salengro S, Molina V, Bombart M (1997) Sub-trochanteric fractures. A comparative study between gamma nail and angular osteosynthesis with lateral cortical support (in French). Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 83(4):335–342

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. van Doorn R, Stapert JW (2000) The long gamma nail in the treatment of 329 subtrochanteric fractures with major extension into the femoral shaft. Eur J Surg 166(3):240–246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Barquet A, Francescoli L, Rienzi D, López L (2000) Intertrochanteric-subtrochanteric fractures: treatment with the long Gamma nail. J Orthop Trauma 14(5):324–328

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hohendorff B, Meyer P, Menezes D, Meier L, Elke R (2005) Treatment results and complications after PFN osteosynthesis (German). Unfallchirurg 108(11):938–940, 941–6 passim

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 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):31–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Pauwels F (1965) Collection of papers of the functional anatomy of the musculoskeletal system. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bonnaire F, Weber A, Bösl O, Eckhardt C, Schwieger K, Linke B (2007) “Cutting out” in pertrochanteric fractures–problem of osteoporosis (in German)? Unfallchirurg 110(5):425–432

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Skála-Rosenbaum J, Bartonícek J, Bartoska R (2010) Is distal locking with IMHN necessary in every pertrochanteric fracture? Int Orthop 34(7):1041–1047

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Daniel Harich, graduate engineer, design engineer, for the support in our study design.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Giessen and Marburg GmbH, Baldingerstrasse, 35043, Marburg, Germany

    Thorben Müller, Tobias Topp, Christian A. Kühne, Gershon Gebhart, Steffen Ruchholtz & Ralph Zettl

Authors
  1. Thorben Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tobias Topp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christian A. Kühne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gershon Gebhart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Steffen Ruchholtz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ralph Zettl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thorben Müller.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Müller, T., Topp, T., Kühne, C.A. et al. The benefit of wire cerclage stabilisation of the medial hinge in intramedullary nailing for the treatment of subtrochanteric femoral fractures: a biomechanical study. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 35, 1237–1243 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1204-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1204-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation