Advertisement

Subtrochanteric Fractures of the Femur

  • R. Hoffmann
  • S. Kolbeck
Chapter

Abstract

Fractures of the proximal femur occur predominantly in elderly patients and have a tremendous impact on the health care system. Approximately 250 000 fractures of the proximal femur occur in the United States each year [1], and this number is projected to double by the year 2050 as the population ages [2]. Osteoporosis, higher age, vestibular disease, vertigo, dementia, malignant tumor and cardiopulmonary disease are all associated with an increased risk of fractures of the proximal femur. With a rising prevalence of these fractures in a population of a growing average age, the incidence of these fractures in young people is also increasing. In the elderly these fractures are generally the result of low-energy trauma caused by a single fall. In young patients, in contrast, fractures around the hip and proximal femur fractures mainly occur with high-energy trauma and are generally associated with multiple injuries. Despite marked improvements in implant designs and surgical techniques, these fractures consume a substantial proportion of the health care resources. These facts demonstrate the importance of proximal femoral fractures both for the single patient and for society in general.

Keywords

Proximal Femur Orthop Trauma Proximal Femur Fracture Subtrochanteric Fracture Proximal Fragment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Praemer A, Furner S, Rice DP, editors. Musculoskeletal conditions in the United States. Park Ridge, IL: The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Frandsen PA, Kruse T. Hip fractures in the county of Funen, Denmark. Implications of demographic aging and changes in incidence rates. Acta Orthop Scand 1983;54:681–686.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Koch JC. The laws of bone architecture. Am J Anat 1917;21:177–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Froimsen AI. Treatment of comminuted subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1970;131:465–472.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Allis OH. Fractures in the upper third of the femur exclusive of the neck. Med News 1891;59:585–590.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Seinsheimer F III. Subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg.Am 1978;60:300–306.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Müller ME, Allgöwer M, Schneider R, Willenegger H.. Manual of internal fixation, 3rd ed. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoffmann R, Südkamp NP, Schütz M, Raschke M, Haas NP. [Update on internal fixation of subtrochanteric fractures]. Unfallchirurg 1996;99:240–248.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kinast C, Bollhofner BR, Mast JW, Ganz R. Subtrochanteric fractures of the femur, results of treatment with the 95° condylar blade plate. Clin Orthop 1989;238:122–130.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nungu KS, Olerud, C., Rehnberg L. Treatment of subtrochanteric fractures with the AO dynamic condylar screw. Injury 1993;24:90–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Warwick DJ, Crichlow TPKR, Langkamer VG, Jackson M. The dynamic condylar screw in the management of subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. Injury 1995;26:241–244.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schatzker J, Wadell JP. Subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. Orthop Clin North Am 1980;11:539–554.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tencer AF, Johnson KD, Johnston DWC, Gill K. A biomechanical comparison of various methods of stabilization of subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Orthop Res 1984;2:297–305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pugh KJ, Morgan RA, Gorczyca JT, Pienkowski D. A mechanical comparison of subtrochanteric femur fracture fixation. J Orthop Trauma 1998;5:324–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aronoff PM, Davis PM, Wickstrom JK: Intramedullary nail fixation as treatment of subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. J. Trauma 1971;11:637–650.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hoffmann R, Südkamp NP, Müller CA, Schütz M, Haas NP. [Internal fixation of proximal femur fractures with the modular interlocking device of the ASIF unreamed femoral nail: first clinical results]. Unfallchirurg 1994;97:568–574.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chi-Chuan W, Chun-Hsiung S, Zhon-Liau L. Subtrochanteric fractures treated with interlocking nailing. J Trauma 1991;31:326–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wiss DA, Brien WW. Subtrochanteric fractures of the femur, results of treatment by interlocking nailing. Clin Orthop 1992;283:231–236.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kang S, McAndrew MP, Johnson KD. The reconstruction locked nail for complex fractures of the proximal femur. J Orthop Trauma 1995;9:453–463.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ratanen J, Aro HT. Intramedullary fixation of high subtrochanteric femoral fractures: a study comparing two implant designs, the gamma nail and the intramedullary hip screw. J Orthop Trauma 1998;12:249–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chevally F, Gamba D. Gamma nailing of pertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures: clinical results of a series of 63 consecutive cases. J Orthop Trauma 1997;11: 412–415..Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Alvarez JR, Gonzolez RC, Aranda RL, Blanco MF, Dehesa MC. Indications for use of the long gamma nail. Clin Orthop 1998;350:62–66.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parker MJ, Dutta BK, Sivaji C, Pryor GA. Subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. Injury 1997;28:91–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Broos PLO, Reynders P, Vanderspeeten K. Mechanical complications associated with the use of the unreamed AO femoral intramedullary nail with spiral blade: first experience with 35 consecutive cases. J Orthop Trauma 1998;12:186–189.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lindsey RW, Teal P, Probe RA, Rhoads D, Davenport S, Schauder K. Early experience with the gamma interlocking nail for peritrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur. J Trauma 1991;31:1649–1658.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stapert JWJL, Geesing CLM, Dunki Jacobs PB, de Wit RJ. First experience and complications with the long gamma nail. J Trauma 1993;34:394–400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zickel RE. An intramedullary fixation device for the proximal part of the femur. Nine years’ experience. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1976;58:866–872.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bergman GD, Winquist RA, Mayo KA, Hansen Jr ST. Subtrochanteric fracture of the femur, fixation using the zickel nail. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1987;69:1032–1040.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ovadia DN, Chess JL. Intraoperative and postoperative subtrochanteric fracture of the femur associated with removal of the Zickel nail. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1988;70:239–243.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yelton C, Low W. Iatrogenic subtrochanteric fracture: a complication of Zickel nail. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1986;68:1237–1240.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Krettek Ch, Miclau T, Grün O, Schandelmaier P, Tscherne H. Intraoperative control of axes, rotation and length in femoral and tibial fractures. Technical note. Injury 1998;Suppl 3:29–39.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wheeler DL, Croy TJ, Woll TS, Scott MD, Senft DC, Duwelius PJ. Comparison of reconstruction nails for high subtrochanteric femur fracture fixation. Clin Orthop 1997;338: 231–239.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Karachalios T, Atkins RM, Sarangi PP, Crichlow TPKR, Solomon L. Reconstruction nailing for pathological subtrochanteric fractures with coexisting femoral shaft metastases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1993;75:119–122.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hoffmann R, Melcher I, Wichelhaus A, Haas NP. Surgical treatment of bone metastases in breast cancer. Anticancer Res 1998;18:2234–2250.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Hoffmann
  • S. Kolbeck

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations