Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 132, Issue 10, pp 1495–1503 | Cite as

Musculoskeletal function and quality of life after an unstable trochanteric fracture treated with the trochanteric gamma nail

  • Ricard Miedel
  • Hans Törnkvist
  • Sari Ponzer
  • Jan Tidermark
Osteoporotic Fracture Management

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Trochanteric fractures Elderly Fracture fixation Intramedullary Treatment outcome Quality of life 

References

  1. 1.
    Rogmark C, Sernbo I, Johnell O, Nilsson JA (1999) Incidence of hip fractures in Malmö, Sweden, 1992–1995. A trend-break. Acta Orthop Scand 70(1):19–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cheng SY, Levy AR, Lefaivre KA, Guy P, Kuramoto L, Sobolev B (2011) Geographic trends in incidence of hip fractures: a comprehensive literature review. Osteoporos Int 22(10):2575–2586PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C, Jonsson B, Oden A, Ogelsby AK (2002) International variations in hip fracture probabilities: implications for risk assessment. J Bone Miner Res 17(7):1237–1244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kannus P, Parkkari J, Sievanen H, Heinonen A, Vuori I, Jarvinen M (1996) Epidemiology of hip fractures. Bone 18(1 Suppl):57S–63SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Löfman O, Berglund K, Larsson L, Toss G (2002) Changes in hip fracture epidemiology: redistribution between ages, genders and fracture types. Osteoporos Int 13(1):18–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karagas MR, Lu-Yao GL, Barrett JA, Beach ML, Baron JA (1996) Heterogeneity of hip fracture: age, race, sex, and geographic patterns of femoral neck and trochanteric fractures among the US elderly. Am J Epidemiol 143(7):677–682PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jensen JS, Michaelsen M (1975) Trochanteric femoral fractures treated with McLaughlin osteosynthesis. Acta Orthop Scand 46(5):795–803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jensen JS, Tondevold E, Sonne-Holm S (1980) Stable trochanteric fractures. A comparative analysis of four methods of internal fixation. Acta Orthop Scand 51(5):811–816PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    The Swedish National Hip Fracture Registry (2009) http://www.rikshoft.se
  10. 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. 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
  12. 12.
    Ponzer S, Skoog A, Bergström G (2003) The Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Questionnaire (SMFA): cross-cultural adaptation, validity, reliability and responsiveness of the Swedish SMFA (SMFA-Swe). Acta Orthop Scand 74(6):756–763PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brooks R (1996) EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 37:53–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brazier JE, Walters SJ, Nicholl JP, Kohler B (1996) Using the SF-36 and Euroqol on an elderly population. Qual Life Res 5(2):195–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Coast J, Peters TJ, Richards SH, Gunnell DJ (1998) Use of the EuroQoL among elderly acute care patients. Qual Life Res 7(1):1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tidermark J, Bergström G (2007) Responsiveness of the EuroQol (EQ-5D) and the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) in elderly patients with femoral neck fractures. Qual Life Res 16(2):321–330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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. 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. 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. 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
  21. 21.
    Pfeiffer E (1975) A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 23(10):433–441PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Owens WD, Felts JA, Spitznagel EL Jr (1978) ASA physical status classifications: a study of consistency of ratings. Anesthesiology 49(4):239–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Katz S, Ford A, Moskowitz R, Jackson B, Jaffe M (1963) Studies of illness in the aged. The index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychological function. JAMA 185:94–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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. 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. 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
  27. 27.
    Miedel R, Törnkvist H, Ponzer S, Söderqvist A, Tidermark J (2011) Musculoskeletal function and quality of life in elderly patients after a subtrochanteric femoral fracture treated with a cephalomedullary nail. J Orthop Trauma 25(4):208–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ekström W, Nemeth G, Samnegård E, Dalen N, Tidermark J (2009) Quality of life after a subtrochanteric fracture: a prospective cohort study on 87 elderly patients. Injury 40(4):371–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ekström W, Miedel R, Ponzer S, Hedström M, Samnegard E, Tidermark J (2009) Quality of life after a stable trochanteric fracture—a prospective cohort study on 148 patients. J Orthop Trauma 23(1):39–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 31.
    Utrilla AL, Reig JS, Munoz FM, Tufanisco CB (2005) Trochanteric gamma nail and compression hip screw for trochanteric fractures: a randomized, prospective, comparative study in 210 elderly patients with a new design of the gamma nail. J Orthop Trauma 19(4):229–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ovesen O, Andersen M, Poulsen T, Nymark T, Overgaard S, Rock ND (2006) The trochanteric gamma nail versus the dynamic hip screw: a prospective randomised study. One-year follow-up of 146 intertrochanteric fractures. Hip Int 16(4):293–298PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Saarenpää I, Heikkinen T, Ristiniemi J, Hyvonen P, Leppilahti J, Jalovaara P (2009) Functional comparison of the dynamic hip screw and the Gamma locking nail in trochanteric hip fractures: a matched-pair study of 268 patients. Int Orthop 33(1):255–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ekström W, Karlsson-Thur C, Larsson S, Ragnarsson B, Alberts KA (2007) Functional outcome in treatment of unstable trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures with the proximal femoral nail and the Medoff sliding plate. J Orthop Trauma 21(1):18–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Papasimos S, Koutsojannis CM, Panagopoulos A, Megas P, Lambiris E (2005) A randomised comparison of AMBI, TGN and PFN for treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 125(7):462–468PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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. 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. 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
  39. 39.
    Olsson O, Ceder L, Lunsjö K, Hauggaard A (1997) Biaxial dynamization in unstable intertrochanteric fractures. Good experience with a simplified Medoff sliding plate in 94 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 68(4):327–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Parker MJ (1996) Trochanteric hip fractures. Fixation failure commoner with femoral medialization, a comparison of 101 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 67(4):329–332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. 42.
    Bhandari M, Schemitsch E, Jonsson A, Zlowodzki M, Haidukewych GJ (2009) Gamma nails revisited: gamma nails versus compression hip screws in the management of intertrochanteric fractures of the hip: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma 23(6):460–464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. 44.
    Barei DP, Agel J, Swiontkowski MF (2007) Current utilization, interpretation, and recommendations: the musculoskeletal function assessments (MFA/SMFA). J Orthop Trauma 21(10):738–742PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lomita C (2002) A comparison of control populations in Qubec using the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment. McGill J Med 6:94–99Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Burström K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F (2001) Swedish population health-related quality of life results using the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res 10(7):621–635PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ricard Miedel
    • 1
    • 3
  • Hans Törnkvist
    • 1
  • Sari Ponzer
    • 1
  • Jan Tidermark
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Section of Orthopaedics, Department of Clinical Science and Education, Karolinska InstitutetStockholm Söder HospitalStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Department of OrthopaedicsCapio S:t Görans HospitalStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Department of OrthopaedicsStockholm Söder HospitalStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations