Musculoskeletal function and quality of life after an unstable trochanteric fracture treated with the trochanteric gamma nail
The aim of the study was to report the musculoskeletal function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after an unstable trochanteric fracture treated with a cephalomedullary nail.
One hundred and seventeen patients, mean age 84.1 years, were included in a 1-year prospective cohort study. Outcome measurements included musculoskeletal function according to the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) and HRQoL according to the EQ-5D.
Fourteen patients (12.0 %) were reoperated on, all but one being due to a secondary lag-screw penetration/cut-out. The need for revision surgery was significantly higher after a 4-part fracture according to the Jensen–Michaelsen classification as compared to after a 3-part fracture, i.e. 17 versus 6 % (p = 0.048). The reoperation was a hip replacement in 12 of the 14 patients, a total hip replacement (THR) in 10 and a hemiarthroplasty in 2. The SMFA dysfunction and bother indices in all patients showed a significant deterioration at 12 months compared to before the fracture, from 24.8 to 42.4 (p < 0.001) and 14.3 to 33.7 (p < 0.001), respectively. The EQ-5Dindex score decreased from 0.79 prefracture to 0.51 (p < 0.001). The final outcome for the patients who underwent reoperation with THR was surprisingly good with an SMFA dysfunction index of 43.4, a bother index of 36.6 and an EQ-5Dindex score of 0.58.
An unstable trochanteric fracture treated with a cephalomedullary nail had a substantial negative impact on the patient’s musculoskeletal function and HRQoL. The need for revision surgery was significantly higher after a 4-part fracture compared to after a 3-part fracture. The by far most common fracture complication, i.e. a secondary lag-screw penetration/cut-out, was successfully treated with a THR.
KeywordsTrochanteric fractures Elderly Fracture fixation Intramedullary Treatment outcome Quality of life
- 9.The Swedish National Hip Fracture Registry (2009) http://www.rikshoft.se
- 10.Mazzocca ADCA, Browner BD, Mast JW, Mendes MW (2003) Principles of internal fixation. In: Browner BD, Jupiter JB, Levine AM, Trafton PG (eds) Skeletal trauma: basic science, management and reconstruction, 3rd edn. Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- 11.Swiontkowski MF, Engelberg R, Martin DP, Agel J (1999) Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Questionnaire: validity, reliability, and responsiveness. J Bone Jt Surg Am 81(9):1245–1260Google Scholar
- 17.Miedel R, Ponzer S, Törnkvist H, Söderqvist A, Tidermark J (2005) The standard Gamma nail or the Medoff sliding plate for unstable trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. A randomised, controlled trial. J Bone Jt Surg Br 87(1):68–75Google Scholar
- 18.Kyle RF, Gustilo RB, Premer RF (1979) Analysis of six hundred and twenty-two intertrochanteric hip fractures. J Bone Jt Surg Am 61(2):216–221Google Scholar
- 19.Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM, Keggi JM (1995) The value of the tip-apex distance in predicting failure of fixation of peritrochanteric fractures of the hip. J Bone Jt Surg Am 77(7):1058–1064Google Scholar
- 20.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(4):241–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Charnley J (1972) The long-term results of low-friction arthroplasty of the hip performed as a primary intervention. J Bone Jt Surg Br 54(1):61–76Google Scholar
- 25.Parker MJ, Handoll HH (2010) Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (9):CD000093Google Scholar
- 26.Radford PJ, Needoff M, Webb JK (1993) A prospective randomised comparison of the dynamic hip screw and the gamma locking nail. J Bone Jt Surg Br 75(5):789–793Google Scholar
- 30.Loch DA, Kyle RF, Bechtold JE, Kane M, Anderson K, Sherman RE (1998) Forces required to initiate sliding in second-generation intramedullary nails. J Bone Jt Surg Am 80(11):1626–1631Google Scholar
- 36.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 Jt Surg Am 92(4):792–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.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–S133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 38.Lunsjö K, Ceder L, Thorngren KG, Skytting B, Tidermark J, Berntson PO, Allvin I, Norberg S, Hjalmars K, Larsson S, Knebel R, Hauggaard A, Stigsson L (2001) Extramedullary fixation of 569 unstable intertrochanteric fractures: a randomized multicenter trial of the Medoff sliding plate versus three other screw-plate systems. Acta Orthop Scand 72(2):133–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 41.Blomfeldt R, Törnkvist H, Eriksson K, Söderqvist A, Ponzer S, Tidermark J (2007) A randomised controlled trial comparing bipolar hemiarthroplasty with total hip replacement for displaced intracapsular fractures of the femoral neck in elderly patients. J Bone Jt Surg Br 89(2):160–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 43.Parker MJ, Handoll HH (2004) Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD000093Google Scholar
- 45.Lomita C (2002) A comparison of control populations in Qubec using the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment. McGill J Med 6:94–99Google Scholar