| Literature DB >> 30045720 |
Nam Hoon Moon1, Won Chul Shin2, Min Uk Do3, Seung Hun Woo3, Seung Min Son3, Kuen Tak Suh3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Isolated greater trochanter (GT) fractures are relatively rare and few studies have assessed the appropriate diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for these fractures. When initial plain radiographs show an isolated GT fracture, underestimation of occult intertrochanteric extension may result in displacement of a previously non-displaced fracture. This study examined the clinical results and value of different diagnostic strategies in elderly patients with isolated GT fractures on plain radiographs.Entities:
Keywords: Diagnosis; Greater trochanter fracture; Occult intertrochanteric fracture; Radiographs
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30045720 PMCID: PMC6060539 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-018-2193-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Demographic data of the patients
| Number | Sex | Type of trauma | BMD (T-score) | Presence of pain | Presence of ecchymosis | Time from trauma to admission (days) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | F | Slip in bathroom | −2.5 | + | – | < 1 |
| 2 | M | Slip in hospital | − 3.4 | + | – | 2 |
| 3 | F | Slip in bathroom | −2.7 | + | + | 10 |
| 4 | F | Slip in bathroom | −2.5 | + | – | < 1 |
| 5 | F | Slip in home | −4.0 | + | – | < 1 |
| 6 | F | Slip in home | −3.5 | + | – | 3 |
| 7 | F | Slip in home | −3.9 | + | – | < 1 |
| 8 | F | Slip in home | −3.1 | + | – | 1 |
| 9 | F | Slip in bathroom | −4.2 | + | – | 5 |
| 10 | F | Slip in home | −2.8 | + | – | < 1 |
| 11 | F | Slip in home | − 2.6 | + | + | < 1 |
| 12 | M | Slip in hospital | −2.9 | + | – | 2 |
| 13 | F | Slip in hospital | −2.5 | + | – | 13 |
| 14 | F | Slip in home | −2.8 | + | + | 2 |
| 15 | M | Slip in home | −4.0 | + | – | 7 |
| 16 | F | Slip in home | −2.7 | + | – | 1 |
| 17 | M | Slip in home | −2.5 | + | + | 0 |
| 18 | F | Slip in home | −4.0 | + | + | 15 |
| 19 | M | Bicycle accident | −3.0 | + | – | 16 |
| 20 | M | Bicycle accident | −3.2 | + | – | 0 |
| 21 | F | Slip in home | −3.1 | + | – | 4 |
| 22 | M | Slip in home | −3.2 | + | – | 1 |
| 23 | M | Slip in home | −3.5 | + | – | 1 |
| 24 | M | Slip in home | −3.2 | + | – | 1 |
| 25 | F | Slip in home | −3.5 | + | – | 19 |
| 26 | M | Bicycle accident | −3.5 | + | – | 1 |
| 27 | M | Slip in home | −3.5 | + | – | 2 |
| 28 | F | Slip in hospital | −3.3 | + | – | 2 |
| 29 | M | Pedestrian accident | −3.5 | + | + | 2 |
| 30 | M | Slip in home | −3.5 | + | – | < 1 |
BMD bone mineral density, M male, F female
Fig. 1Case of a 72-year-old who presented at the outpatient department with right hip pain after slipping at home. a A plain radiograph of the right hip shows only an isolated greater trochanter fracture (arrow). b A bone scan obtained 3 days after the trauma shows radionuclide predominantly concentrated in the greater trochanter. c A computed tomography scan shows no occult intertrochanteric fracture. d A T1-weighted coronal image shows a linear low-signal intensity focus (arrow) indicating a fracture. e A T2-weighted coronal image shows a fracture surrounded by high signal intensity (arrow) and abnormal signal in the muscles around the hip. These findings are compatible with interstitial hemorrhage and hematoma (bold arrows)
Radiologic findings and managements in the study group
| Number | Plain radiograph | Uptake site on bone scan | CT | MRI | Presence of soft tissue injury | Type of management |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Isolated GT fx. | No uptake | No data | IT fx. | + | Surgical |
| 2 | Isolated GT fx. | IT | No fx. | IT fx. | + | Surgical |
| 3 | Isolated GT fx. | No uptake | No data | IT fx. | + | Surgical |
| 4 | Isolated GT fx. | IT | No data | IT fx. | + | Surgical |
| 5 | Isolated GT fx. | IT | No data | IT fx. | + | Surgical |
| 6 | Isolated GT fx. | Isolated GT | Isolated GT fx. | Isolated GT fx. | + | Conservative |
| 7 | Isolated GT fx. | IT | No fx. | IT fx. | + | Surgical |
| 8 | Isolated GT fx. | IT | IT fx. | IT fx. | + | Surgical |
| 9 | Isolated GT fx. | IT | IT fx. | IT fx. | + | Surgical |
| 10 | Isolated GT fx. | IT | IT fx. | IT fx. | + | Surgical |
| 11 | Isolated GT fx. | IT | IT fx. | IT fx. | + | Surgical |
| 12 | Isolated GT fx. | IT | IT fx. | IT fx. | + | Surgical |
| 13 | Isolated GT fx. | Isolated GT | Isolated GT fx. | Isolated GT fx. | + | Conservative |
| 14 | Isolated GT fx. | IT | IT fx. | IT fx. | + | Surgical |
| 15 | Isolated GT fx. | IT | IT fx. | IT fx. | + | Surgical |
| 16 | Isolated GT fx. | IT | IT fx. | IT fx. | + | Surgical |
| 17 | Isolated GT fx. | No uptake | Isolated GT fx. | Isolated GT fx. | + | Conservative |
| 18 | Isolated GT fx. | IT | Isolated GT fx. | IT fx. | + | Conservative |
| 19 | Isolated GT fx. | Isolated GT | Isolated GT fx. | Isolated GT fx. | + | Conservative |
| 20 | Isolated GT fx. | IT | IT fx. | IT fx. | + | Surgical |
| 21 | Isolated GT fx. | IT | Isolated GT fx. | IT fx. | + | Surgical |
| 22 | Isolated GT fx. | IT | IT fx. | IT fx. | + | Surgical |
| 23 | Isolated GT fx. | IT | IT fx. | IT fx. | + | Surgical |
| 24 | Isolated GT fx. | Isolated GT | Isolated GT fx. | Isolated GT fx. | + | Conservative |
| 25 | Isolated GT fx. | No uptake | Isolated GT fx. | Isolated GT fx. | + | Conservative |
| 26 | Isolated GT fx. | Isolated GT | Isolated GT fx. | Isolated GT fx. | + | Conservative |
| 27 | Isolated GT fx. | IT | Isolated GT fx. | IT fx. | + | Surgical |
| 28 | Isolated GT fx. | Isolated GT | Isolated GT fx. | Isolated GT fx. | + | Conservative |
| 29 | Isolated GT fx. | IT | Isolated GT fx. | IT fx. | + | Surgical |
| 30 | Isolated GT fx. | Isolated GT | Isolated GT fx. | Isolated GT fx. | + | Conservative |
GT greater trochanteric, Fx. Fracture, IT intertrochanteric
Diagnostic characteristics of the imaging modalities of occult intertrochanteric fracture of the femur (reported with 95% confidence interval)
| Plain radiograph ( | Bone scan ( | CT ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 0.0 (0.0–22.8) | 100.0 (77.2–100.0) | 76.5 (50.1–93.2) | 0.045 |
| Specificity | 100.0 (55.5–100.0) | 77.8 (40.0–97.2) | 100.0 (55.5–100.0) | 0.157 |
| Accuracy | 30.0 (14.7–49.4) | 93.3 (77.9–99.2) | 84.6 (65.1–95.6) | 0.046 |
| PPV | NaN | 91.3 (72.0–98.9) | 100.0 (66.1–100.0) | |
| NPV | 30.0 (14.7–49.4) | 100.0 (47.3–100.0) | 69.2 (38.6–90.9) |
PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value
Fig. 2Case of an 84-year-old woman who presented at the emergency department with left hip pain after slipping in the bathroom. a A plain radiograph of the left hip only shows an isolated greater trochanter fracture (arrow). b A bone scan obtained 2 days after the trauma was unremarkable. c The T1-weighted coronal image shows an intertrochanteric fracture (arrow) that extends to the medial cortex. d The T2-weighted coronal image shows a fracture at the same level (arrow) and abnormal signal in the muscles around the hip (bold arrows)
Fig. 3Case of a 73-year-old woman presented at the emergency department with right hip pain after slipping in a convalescent hospital. a A plain radiograph of the right hip shows an isolated greater trochanter fracture. b A bone scan performed 6 days after the trauma reveals that the fracture extended into the intertrochanteric region. c A computed tomography scan shows an isolated greater trochanteric fracture without intertrochanteric extent. d, e Magnetic resonance imaging shows an intertrochanteric fracture that crosses the midline to the medial cortex. f Internal fixation was performed using proximal femoral nail antirotation
Clinical results in the study group
| Preoperative | Recovery | |
|---|---|---|
| Charnley hip pain scorea | 4.9 | |
| Walking ability | ||
| Independent community ambulator | 16 | 14 |
| Community ambulator with cane | 8 | 9 |
| Community ambulator with walker | 2 | 1 |
| Independent household ambulator | 2 | 3 |
| Household ambulator with cane | 1 | 1 |
| Household ambulator with walker | 0 | 1 |
| Nonfunctional ambulator | 1 | 1 |
| Death within 1 year | 0 | |
aBest possible score = 6 and worst possible score = 1