Literature DB >> 29470236

Is the Lesser Trochanter Profile a Reliable Means of Restoring Anatomic Rotation After Femur Fracture Fixation?

Lucas S Marchand1, Dane C Todd, Patrick Kellam, Temitope F Adeyemi, David L Rothberg, Travis G Maak.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Restoring normal femoral rotation is an important consideration when managing femur fractures. Femoral malrotation after fixation is common and several preventive techniques have been described. Use of the lesser trochanter profile is a simple method to prevent malrotation, because the profile changes with femoral rotation, but the accuracy of this method is unclear. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purposes of this study were (1) to report the rotational profiles of uninjured femora in an adult population; and (2) to determine if the lesser trochanter profile was associated with variability in femoral rotation.
METHODS: One hundred fifty-five consecutive patients (72% female and 28% male) with a mean age of 32 years (range, 12-56 years) with a CT scanogram were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were included if CT scanograms had adequate cuts of the proximal and distal femur. Patients were excluded if they had prior hip/femur surgery or anatomic abnormalities of the proximal femur. CT scanogram measurements of femoral rotation were compared with the lesser trochanter profile (distance from the tip of the lesser trochanter to the medial cortex of the femur) measured on weightbearing AP radiographs. These measurements were made by a single fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeon and repeated for intraobserver reliability testing. Presence of rotational differences based on sex and laterality was assessed and correlation of the difference in lesser trochanter profile to the difference in femoral rotation was determined using a coefficient of determination (r).
RESULTS: The mean femoral rotation was 10.9° (SD ± 8.8°) of anteversion. Mean right femoral rotation was 11.0° (SD ± 8.9°) and mean left femoral rotation was 10.7° (SD ± 8.7°) with a mean difference of 0.3° (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.7° to 2.3°; p = 0.76). Males had a mean rotation of 9.4°(SD ± 7.7°) and females had a mean rotation of 11.5° (SD ± 9.1°) with a mean difference of 2.1° (95% CI, -0.1° to 4.3°; p = 0.06). Mean lesser trochanter profile was 6.6 mm (SD ± 4.0 mm). Mean right lesser trochanter profile was 6.6 mm (SD ± 3.9 mm) and mean left lesser trochanter profile was 6.5 mm (SD ± 4.0 mm) with a mean difference of 0.1 mm (-0.8 mm to 1.0 mm, p = 0.86). The lesser trochanter profile varied between the sexes; males had a mean of 8.3 mm (SD ± 3.4), and females had a mean of 5.9 mm (SD ± 4.0). The mean difference between sexes was 2.5 mm (1.5-3.4 mm; p < 0.001). The magnitude of the lesser trochanter profile measurement and degree of femoral rotation were positively correlated such that increasing measures of the lesser trochanter profile were associated with increasing amounts of femoral anteversion. The lesser trochanter profile was associated with femoral version in a linear regression model (r = 0.64; p < 0.001). Thus, 64% of the difference in femoral rotation can be explained by the difference in the lesser trochanter profile. Intraobserver reliability for both the femoral version and lesser trochanter profile was noted to be excellent with intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.94 and 0.95, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: This study helps define the normal femoral rotation profile among adults without femoral injury or bone deformity and demonstrated no rotational differences between sexes. The lesser trochanter profile was found to be positively associated with femoral rotation. Increasing and decreasing lesser trochanter profile measurements are associated with increasing and decreasing amounts of femoral rotation, respectively. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The lesser trochanter profile can determine the position of the femur in both anteversion and retroversion, supporting its use as a method to restore preinjury femoral rotation after fracture fixation. Although some variability in the rotation between sides may exist, matching the lesser trochanter profile between injured and uninjured femora can help reestablish native rotation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29470236      PMCID: PMC6263571          DOI: 10.1007/s11999.0000000000000226

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  30 in total

Review 1.  Rotational malalignment after fractures of the femur.

Authors:  R L Jaarsma; A van Kampen
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2004-11

2.  Use of inherent anteversion of an intramedullary nail to avoid malrotation in femur fractures.

Authors:  Chris Espinoza; Ashoke K Sathy; Daniel S Moore; Adam J Starr; Charles M Reinert
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 2.512

3.  Limb malalignment and functional outcome after antegrade versus retrograde intramedullary nailing in distal femoral fractures.

Authors:  Khaled Hamed Salem; Dirk Maier; Peter Keppler; Lothar Kinzl; Florian Gebhard
Journal:  J Trauma       Date:  2006-08

4.  Retrograde versus antegrade nailing of femoral shaft fractures.

Authors:  W M Ricci; C Bellabarba; B Evanoff; D Herscovici; T DiPasquale; R Sanders
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2001 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.512

5.  Compensation for rotational malalignment after intramedullary nailing for femoral shaft fractures. An analysis by plantar pressure measurements during gait.

Authors:  R L Jaarsma; B F Ongkiehong; C Grüneberg; N Verdonschot; J Duysens; A van Kampen
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 2.586

6.  Femoral malrotation after unreamed intramedullary nailing: an evaluation of influencing operative factors.

Authors:  Tobias Hüfner; Mustafa Citak; Eduardo M Suero; Brian Miller; Daniel Kendoff; Christian Krettek; Musa Citak
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 2.512

7.  Rotational malalignment after intramedullary nailing of femoral fractures.

Authors:  R L Jaarsma; D F M Pakvis; N Verdonschot; J Biert; A van Kampen
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 2.512

8.  Femoral anteversion in normal adults. Ultrasound measurements in 50 men and 50 women.

Authors:  M Bråten; T Terjesen; I Rossvoll
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1992-02

9.  Torsional deformity after intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures. Measurement of anteversion angles in 110 patients.

Authors:  M Bråten; T Terjesen; I Rossvoll
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1993-09

10.  Predicting the rotationally neutral state of the femur by comparing the shape of the contralateral lesser trochanter.

Authors:  J J Kim; E Kim; K Y Kim
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 1.390

View more
  3 in total

1.  CORR Insights®: Is the Lesser Trochanter Profile a Reliable Means of Restoring Anatomic Rotation After Femur Fracture Fixation?

Authors:  Paul J Dougherty
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Quantitative assessment of changes in lesser trochanter shapes in relation to femoral rotations.

Authors:  Ali Turgut; Anıl Koca; Melikşah Uzakgider; Sertan Hancıoğlu; Serkan Erkuş; Önder Kalenderer
Journal:  Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 1.511

3.  Intraoperative fluoroscopic protocol to avoid rotational malalignment after nailing of tibia shaft fractures: introduction of the 'C-Arm Rotational View (CARV)'.

Authors:  Nils Jan Bleeker; Job N Doornberg; Kaj Ten Duis; Mostafa El Moumni; Inge H F Reininga; Ruurd L Jaarsma; Frank F A IJpma
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2022-07-30       Impact factor: 2.374

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.