BACKGROUND: Fixation of trochanteric hip fractures using the Gamma Nail has been performed since 1988 and is today well established and wide-spread. However, a number of reports have raised serious concerns about the implant's complication rate. The main focus has been the increased risk of a subsequent femoral shaft fracture and some authors have argued against its use despite other obvious advantages, when this implant is employed. Through access to a uniquely large patient data base available, which is available for analysis of trochanteric fractures; we have been able to evaluate the performance of the Gamma Nail over a twelve year period. METHODS: 3066 consecutive patients were treated for trochanteric fractures using Gamma Nails between 1990 and 2002 at the Centre de Traumatologie et de l'Orthopedie (CTO), Strasbourg, France. These patients were retrospectively analysed. Information on epidemiological data, intra- and postoperative complications and patients' outcome was retrieved from patient notes. All available radiographs were assessed by a single reviewer (AJB). RESULTS: The results showed a low complication rate with the use of the Gamma Nail. There were 137 (4.5%) intraoperative fracture-related complications. Moreover 189 (6.2%) complications were detected postoperatively and during follow-up. Cut-out of the lag screw from the femoral head was the most frequent mechanical complication (57 patients, 1.85%), whereas a postoperative femoral shaft fracture occurred in 19 patients (0.6%). Other complications, such as infection, delayed healing/non-union, avascular femoral head necrosis and distal locking problems occurred in 113 patients (3.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the Gamma Nail in trochanteric hip fractures is a safe method with a low complication rate. In particular, a low rate of femoral shaft fractures was reported. The low complication rate reported in this series can probably be explained by strict adherence to a proper surgical technique.
BACKGROUND: Fixation of trochanteric hip fractures using the Gamma Nail has been performed since 1988 and is today well established and wide-spread. However, a number of reports have raised serious concerns about the implant's complication rate. The main focus has been the increased risk of a subsequent femoral shaft fracture and some authors have argued against its use despite other obvious advantages, when this implant is employed. Through access to a uniquely large patient data base available, which is available for analysis of trochanteric fractures; we have been able to evaluate the performance of the Gamma Nail over a twelve year period. METHODS: 3066 consecutive patients were treated for trochanteric fractures using Gamma Nails between 1990 and 2002 at the Centre de Traumatologie et de l'Orthopedie (CTO), Strasbourg, France. These patients were retrospectively analysed. Information on epidemiological data, intra- and postoperative complications and patients' outcome was retrieved from patient notes. All available radiographs were assessed by a single reviewer (AJB). RESULTS: The results showed a low complication rate with the use of the Gamma Nail. There were 137 (4.5%) intraoperative fracture-related complications. Moreover 189 (6.2%) complications were detected postoperatively and during follow-up. Cut-out of the lag screw from the femoral head was the most frequent mechanical complication (57 patients, 1.85%), whereas a postoperative femoral shaft fracture occurred in 19 patients (0.6%). Other complications, such as infection, delayed healing/non-union, avascular femoral head necrosis and distal locking problems occurred in 113 patients (3.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the Gamma Nail in trochanteric hip fractures is a safe method with a low complication rate. In particular, a low rate of femoral shaft fractures was reported. The low complication rate reported in this series can probably be explained by strict adherence to a proper surgical technique.
Authors: R K J Simmermacher; J Ljungqvist; H Bail; T Hockertz; A J H Vochteloo; U Ochs; Chr v d Werken Journal: Injury Date: 2008-06-25 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: K S Leung; C M Chen; W S So; K Sato; C H Lai; B Machaisavariya; S Suntharalingam Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 1996-02 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Konrad Schuetze; S Ehinger; A Eickhoff; C Dehner; F Gebhard; P H Richter Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2020-07-25 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Susan V Bukata; Benedict F Digiovanni; Susan M Friedman; Harry Hoyen; Amy Kates; Stephen L Kates; Simon C Mears; Daniel A Mendelson; Fernando H Serna; Frederick E Sieber; Wakenda K Tyler Journal: Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil Date: 2011-01
Authors: Charles A Gallagher; Christopher W Jones; Lara Kimmel; Christopher Wylde; Anthony Osbrough; Max Bulsara; Kathryn Hird; Piers Yates Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2018-06-20 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: N A Johnson; C Uzoigwe; M Venkatesan; V Burgula; A Kulkarni; J N Davison; R U Ashford Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 1.891