Prospective study of the reproducibility of X-rays and CT scans for assessing trochanteric fracture comminution in the elderly: a series of 110 cases

  • Ronald IsidaEmail author
  • Varenka Bariatinsky
  • Gregory Kern
  • Gregoire Dereudre
  • Xavier Demondion
  • Christophe Chantelot
Original Article • HIP - TRAUMA



Trochanteric fractures are common but difficult to analyse in the elderly on plain X-rays. Fixation failures are related to the severity of the comminution, but comminution and the degree of instability are not easy to determine on standard X-rays. Use of computed tomography (CT) improves assessment of complex fractures, but this finding has not been confirmed versus intraoperative data. The primary objective of this prospective study was to determine the error rate when evaluating comminution on X-rays and CT scans. The secondary objectives were to determine whether CT data on comminution and stability were consistent with intraoperative findings and to define the fracture characteristics.


Standard X-ray assessment underestimates the complexity of trochanteric fractures and is not very reproducible.


Between January and December 2013, all proximal femur fractures in the trochanter area of patients aged 75 years or older (mean age 85) were analysed prospectively with standard X-rays and computed tomography (CT). One hundred and ten patients (88 women and 22 men) with trochanteric fractures were included in the study. Fracture stability was evaluated using the Müller AO classification; the other fracture characteristics were evaluated independently. A senior surgeon evaluated the anonymised X-rays. A radiologist specialised in musculoskeletal imaging interpreted the CT scan images. All patients underwent total hip arthroplasty (110 patients) and 104 fixations of the greater trochanter. The X-ray and CT findings were compared to the intraoperative findings (gold standard) to evaluate their reproducibility.


The reproducibility of the X-ray evaluation was poor for comminution, with a kappa of 0.4, sensitivity of 44 % and a negative predictive value of 29 % but a positive predictive value and specificity of 100 %. The CT evaluation had a kappa of 0.94, sensitivity of 95 % and negative predictive value of 79 %. According to the AO classification, unstable fractures were found in 65 patients based on X-rays, 80 patients based on CT scan and 83 patients based on intraoperative findings. Comminution was mainly identified during surgery; it was medial in 34 % of cases, posterior in 22 % and posteromedial in 21.8 %.

Discussion and conclusion

In the current study, 75.4 % of fractures were complex and unstable, with medial and/or posterior comminution present in three-quarters of these fractures. X-ray assessment underestimates posterior comminution and the complexity of the fracture line and was not very reproducible. The current results of this study suggest that comminution contributes to instability and that this finding is not taken into account in the AO classification, which is not well suited for this type of fracture and raises the question of how to best evaluate and treat these fractures.

Level of evidence

Prospective diagnostic study, Level III.


Trochanteric fracture Comminuted fracture Instability Elderly THA 



We are grateful for the advice provided by Prof. Henri Migaud during the preparation of this article.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.


  1. 1.
    Waast D, Touraine D, Wessely L et al (2007) Pertrochanteric fractures in elderly subjects aged over 75. Rev Chir Orthopédique Réparatrice Appar Mot 93(4 Suppl 2):S33–S46Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ramisetty NM, Pynsent PB, Abudu A (2005) Fracture of the femoral neck, the risk of serious underlying pathology. Injury 36:622–626CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bonnevialle P, Saragaglia D, Ehlinger M et al (2011) Trochanteric locking nail versus arthroplasty in unstable intertrochanteric fracture in patients aged over 75 years. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 97(6 Suppl):S95–S100CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mnif H, Koubaa M, Zrig M, Trabelsi R, Abid A (2009) Elderly patient’s mortality and morbidity following trochanteric fracture. A prospective study of 100 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 95:505–510CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bartoska R, Baca V, Kachlik D, Marvan J, Dzupa V (2013) The correlation between muscles insertions and topography of break lines in pertrochanteric fractures: a comprehensive anatomical approach of complex proximal femur injuries. Surg Radiol Anat 35:957–962CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Do JH, Kim YS, Lee SJ, Jo ML, Han SK (2013) Influence of fragment volume on stability of 3-part intertrochanteric fracture of the femur: a biomechanical study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 23:371–377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cavaignac E, Lecoq M, Ponsot A et al (2013) CT scan does not improve the reproducibility of trochanteric fracture classification: a prospective observational study of 53 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99:46–51CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fichman SG, Mäkinen TJ, Safir O, et al (2015) Arthroplasty for unstable pertrochanteric hip fractures may offer a lower re-operation rate as compared to cephalomedullary nailing. Int Orthop. PMID: 25947904 (in press) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parker MJ, Handoll HH (2006) Replacement arthroplasty versus internal fixation for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD000086Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Müller ME, Nazarian S (1981) Classification of fractures of the femur and its use in the A.O. index. Rev Chir Orthopédique Réparatrice Appar Mot 67:297–309Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zwipp H, Amlang M (2014) Treatment of fractures of the ankle in the elderly. Orthopade 43:332–338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sinno K, Sakr M, Girard J, Khatib H (2010) The effectiveness of primary bipolar arthroplasty in treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients. North Am J Med Sci 2:561–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haentjens P, Casteleyn PP, De Boeck H, Handelberg F, Opdecam P (1989) Treatment of unstable intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures in elderly patients. Primary bipolar arthroplasty compared with internal fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 71:1214–1225PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koval KJ, Oh CK, Egol KA (2008) Does a traction-internal rotation radiograph help to better evaluate fractures of the proximal femur? Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 66:102–106PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Larbi A, Blin D, Cyteval C (2011) Hip and pelvic injuries in the elderly. J Radiol 92:567–580CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Apel DM, Patwardhan A, Pinzur MS, Dobozi WR (1989) Axial loading studies of unstable intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res 246:156–164PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bégué T (2014) Articular fractures of the distal humerus. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 100(1 Suppl):S55–S63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haidukewych GJ (2010) Intertrochanteric fractures: ten tips to improve results. Instr Course Lect 59:503–509PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Koval Zuckerman (1994) Hip fractures: II. Evaluation and treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2:150–156PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thomsen JS, Ebbesen EN, Mosekilde L (2002) Predicting human vertebral bone strength by vertebral static histomorphometry. Bone 30:502–508CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jacobs RR, McClain O, Armstrong HJ (1980) Internal fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: a clinical and biomechanical study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 146:62–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Den Hartog BD, Bartal E, Cooke F (1991) Treatment of the unstable intertrochanteric fracture. Effect of the placement of the screw, its angle of insertion, and osteotomy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 73:726–733Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Laros GS (1975) Intertrochanteric fractures. The role of complications of fixation. Arch Surg 110:37–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Han SK, Lee BY, Kim YS, Choi NY (2010) Usefulness of multi-detector CT in Boyd-Griffin type 2 intertrochanteric fractures with clinical correlation. Skeletal Radiol 39:543–549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van Embden D, Rhemrev SJ, Meylaerts SAG, Roukema GR (2010) The comparison of two classifications for trochanteric femur fractures: the AO/ASIF classification and the Jensen classification. Injury 41:377–381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jin WJ, Dai LY, Cui YM, Zhou Q, Jiang LS, Lu H (2005) Reliability of classification systems for intertrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur in experienced orthopaedic surgeons. Injury 36:858–861CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schipper IB, Steyerberg EW, Castelein RM, van Vugt AB (2001) Reliability of the AO/ASIF classification for pertrochanteric femoral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand 72:36–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pervez H, Parker MJ, Pryor GA, Lutchman L, Chirodian N (2002) Classification of trochanteric fracture of the proximal femur: a study of the reliability of current systems. Injury 33:713–715CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald Isida
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Varenka Bariatinsky
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gregory Kern
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gregoire Dereudre
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xavier Demondion
    • 1
    • 3
  • Christophe Chantelot
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Université Lille-Nord de FranceLilleFrance
  2. 2.Département de Chirurgie d’Orthopédique et Traumatologique, Hôpital SalengroCHRU de LilleLilleFrance
  3. 3.Service de Radiologie et d’Imagerie, Bâtiment CCIALCHRU de LilleLilleFrance

Personalised recommendations