Skip to main content
Log in

Proximale Femurfraktur

Proximal femoral fractures

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Trauma und Berufskrankheit

Zusammenfassung

Die proximale Femurfraktur gehört zu den häufigsten Frakturen v. a. der älteren Bevölkerungsgruppen. Aufgrund steigender Lebenserwartung sowie damit verbundener Morbidität steigt auch die Inzidenz dieser Frakturen. Damit eine zügige Remobilisierung und damit verbunden eine gesenkte Mortalität erreicht werden kann, sind eine klare Diagnosestellung mit Erkennung evtl. Fallstricke, eine zeitnahe und stabile operative Therapie sowie ein interdisziplinäres perioperatives Management erforderlich. Dem Operateur steht eine Vielzahl an möglichen Implantaten zur Auswahl. Diese sollten im Detail gekannt und passend zur Frakturform gewählt werden. Da aber trotz optimaler Implantate und Operationstechniken die Mortalitätsrate im kurzfristigen Verlauf äußerst hoch ist, muss auch ein spezielles Augenmerk auf eine sorgsame Überleitung in die poststationäre Behandlung gerichtet werden und v. a. eine evtl. zugrunde liegende Ursache weiter abgeklärt werden.

Abstract

Proximal femoral fractures are one of the most common fractures, especially in the older population group. Due to increasing life expectancy and the associated morbidity, the incidence of these fractures is also increasing. In order to realize a rapid remobilization and an associated reduced mortality, it is important to achieve a clear diagnosis, recognize possible pitfalls and perform prompt and reliable surgery in an interdisciplinary, perioperative setting. A great variety of possible implants are available for the surgeon. The surgeon should know them in detail and choose the correct one to match the individual type of fracture; however, despite optimal implants and surgical techniques, mortality is very high in the short-term course. Special attention must therefore be paid to a careful transition to post-hospital care and in particular the possible underlying cause of the fracture must be clarified.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /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.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6
Abb. 7

Literatur

  1. AQUA-Institut Bundesauswertung proximaler Femurfrakturen 17/1 2014. https://www.sqg.de/downloads/Bundesauswertungen/2014/bu_Gesamt_17N1-HUEFT-FRAK_2014.pdf. Zugegriffen: 17. Juli 2016

  2. IQTIG Bundesauswertung proximaler Femurfrakturen 17/1 2017. https://iqtig.org/qs-verfahren/hueftfrak-osteo/. Zugegriffen: 14. Apr. 2019

  3. Lohmann R et al (2007) Proximale Femurfrakturen im Alter Bd. 110

    Google Scholar 

  4. Williamson S et al (2017) Costs of fragility hip fractures globally: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Osteoporos Int 28(10):2791–2800

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Diaz AR, Navas PZ (2018) Risk factors for trochanteric and femoral neck fracture. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol 62(2):134–141

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wilkins CH, Birge SJ (2005) Prevention of osteoporotic fractures in the elderly. Am J Med 118(11):1190–1195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Unnanuntana A et al (2010) The assessment of fracture risk. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(3):743–753

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. DVO (2017) Osteoporose Leitlinie 2017. https://www.dv-osteologie.org/dvo_leitlinien/dvo-leitlinie-2017. Zugegriffen: 13. Apr. 2019

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hadji P, Jacob L, Kostev K (2016) Gender- and age-related treatment compliance in patients with osteoporosis in Germany. Patient Prefer Adherence 10:2379–2385

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Giangregorio L et al (2006) Fragility fractures and the osteoporosis care gap: an international phenomenon. Semin Arthritis Rheum 35(5):293–305

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rosso F et al (2016) Prognostic factors for mortality after hip fracture: operation within 48 hours is mandatory. Injury 47(Suppl 4):91–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hu F et al (2012) Preoperative predictors for mortality following hip fracture surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Injury 43(6):676–685

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Evans EM (1949) The treatment of Trochanteric fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br 31-B(2):190–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Evans EM (1951) Trochanteric fractures; a review of 110 cases treated by nail-plate fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 33b(2):192–204

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dresing K (2015) Leitlinie zur Behandlung der pertrochantären Femurfraktur. https://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/012-002.html. Zugegriffen: 14. Apr. 2019

    Google Scholar 

  16. Handoll HHG, Parker MJ (2008) Conservative versus operative treatment for hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD000337. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000337.pub2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhu Q et al (2017) Intramedullary nails versus sliding hip screws for AO/OTA 31-A2 trochanteric fractures in adults: a meta-analysis. Int J Surg 43:67–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Queally JM et al (2014) Intramedullary nails for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:Cd4961

    Google Scholar 

  19. Shen L et al (2013) Antirotation proximal femoral nail versus dynamic hip screw for intertrochanteric fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99(4):377–383

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Huang X et al (2013) Proximal femoral nail versus dynamic hip screw fixation for trochanteric fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. ScientificWorldJournal 2013:805805

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Jacob J, Desai A, Trompeter A (2017) Decision making in the management of Extracapsular fractures of the proximal femur—is the dynamic hip screw the prevailing gold standard? Open Orthop J 11:1213–1217

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Nie B et al (2017) The medial femoral wall can play a more important role in unstable intertrochanteric fractures compared with lateral femoral wall: a biomechanical study. J Orthop Surg Res 12(1):197–197

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Murena L et al (2018) Predictors of cut-out after cephalomedullary nail fixation of pertrochanteric fractures: a retrospective study of 813 patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138(3):351–359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rubio-Avila J et al (2013) Tip to apex distance in femoral intertrochanteric fractures: a systematic review. J Orthop Sci 18(4):592–598

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zeng C et al (2012) Meta-analysis of proximal femoral nail anti-rotation versus dynamic hip screw in the treatment of trochanteric fractures. Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban 37(6):606–615

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ma KL et al (2014) Proximal femoral nails antirotation, gamma nails, and dynamic hip screws for fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of femur: a meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 100(8):859–866

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Zeng X et al (2017) Proximal femoral nail antirotation versus dynamic hip screw fixation for treatment of osteoporotic type 31-A1 intertrochanteric femoral fractures in elderly patients. J Int Med Res 45(3):1109–1123

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhang K et al (2014) Proximal femoral nail vs. dynamic hip screw in treatment of intertrochanteric fractures: a meta-analysis. Med Sci Monit 20:1628–1633

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Kammerlander C et al (2014) Long-term results of the augmented PFNA: a prospective multicenter trial. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134(3):343–349

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Saarenpää I, Heikkinen T, Jalovaara P (2007) Treatment of subtrochanteric fractures. A comparison of the Gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw: short-term outcome in 58 patients. Int Orthop 31(1):65–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Dunn J et al (2016) Long versus short cephalomedullary nail for trochanteric femur fractures (OTA 31-A1, A2 and A3): a systematic review. J Orthop Traumatol 17(4):361–367

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Kim JW et al (2014) Percutaneous cerclage wiring followed by intramedullary nailing for subtrochanteric femoral fractures: a technical note with clinical results. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134(9):1227–1235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Jain R, Basinski A, Kreder HJ (2003) Nonoperative treatment of hip fractures. Int Orthop 27(1):11–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Shuqiang M et al (2006) Outcome of non-operative management in Garden I femoral neck fractures. Injury 37(10):974–978

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Gurusamy K, Parker MJ, Rowlands TK (2005) The complications of displaced intracapsular fractures of the hip: the effect of screw positioning and angulation on fracture healing. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(5):632–634

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Min BW, Kim SJ (2011) Avascular necrosis of the femoral head after osteosynthesis of femoral neck fracture. Orthopedics 34(5):349

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Manninger J et al (1989) Significance of urgent (within 6h) internal fixation in the management of fractures of the neck of the femur. Injury 20(2):101–105

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bonnaire FA, Weber AT (2002) The influence of haemarthrosis on the development of femoral head necrosis following intracapsular femoral neck fractures. Injury 33(Suppl 3):C33–C40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Andruszkow H et al (2013) Influence of comorbidities and delay in surgical treatment on mortality following femoral neck fracture. Z Orthop Unfall 151(4):338–342

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Parker MJ, Stockton G (2001) Internal fixation implants for intracapsular proximal femoral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD1467

    Google Scholar 

  41. McKinley JC, Robinson CM (2002) Treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures with total hip arthroplasty: comparison of primary arthroplasty with early salvage arthroplasty after failed internal fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-a(11):2010–2015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Parker MJ, Gurusamy KS, Azegami Arthroplasties S (2010) (with and without bone cement) for proximal femoral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 6:CD1706

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kannan A et al (2012) Arthroplasty options in femoral-neck fracture: answers from the national registries. Int Orthop 36(1):1–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Costa ML et al (2011) Does cementing the femoral component increase the risk of peri-operative mortality for patients having replacement surgery for a fracture of the neck of femur? Data From Natl Hip Fract Database 93-B(10):1405–1410

    Google Scholar 

  45. Yli-Kyyny T et al (2014) Cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of femoral neck fractures? Acta Orthop 85(1):49–53

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Magetsari R et al (2014) Deep vein thrombosis in elderly patients following surgery for fracture of the proximal femur. Malays Orthop J 8(3):7–10

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Merloz P (2018) Optimization of perioperative management of proximal femoral fracture in the elderly. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 104(1s):25–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Buecking B et al (2013) Early orthogeriatric treatment of trauma in the elderly: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Dtsch Arztebl Int 110(15):255–262

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Stein G, Meyer C, Pape-Köhler C (2016) Per- und subtrochantäre Frakturen. In: Pape-Köhler C, Stein G (Hrsg) Unfallchirurgie in der Grund- und Notfallversorgung, 1. Aufl. Thieme, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  50. Mödder U, Steinbrich W, Regazzoni P (Hrsg) (1999) Frakturen und Luxationen. Referenz-Reihe Radiologische Diagnostik. Thieme, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  51. Ruchholtz S, Wirtz D (Hrsg) (2012) Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie essentials Bd. 2. Thieme, Stuttgart https://doi.org/10.1055/b-002-35715

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to T. Klopfer, P. Hemmann, A. J. Schreiner or C. Bahrs.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

T. Klopfer, P. Hemmann, A.J. Schreiner und C. Bahrs geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien. Alle Patienten, die über Bildmaterial oder anderweitige Angaben innerhalb des Manuskripts zu identifizieren sind, haben hierzu ihre schriftliche Einwilligung gegeben.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Klopfer, T., Hemmann, P., Schreiner, A.J. et al. Proximale Femurfraktur. Trauma Berufskrankh 21, 86–94 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10039-019-0428-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10039-019-0428-9

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation