| Literature DB >> 30116869 |
Jiantao Li1, Licheng Zhang1, Hao Zhang1, Peng Yin2, Mingxing Lei3, Guoqi Wang1, Song Wang4, Peifu Tang5.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine how the reduction of medial and anteromedial cortices using CT findings in 31-A2 intertrochanteric fractures treated with the intramedullary nail could affect the clinical outcomes and complication rates of the fractures.Entities:
Keywords: CT findings; Intertrochanteric fractures; Intramedullary nail; Outcomes; Reduction quality
Year: 2018 PMID: 30116869 PMCID: PMC6647079 DOI: 10.1007/s00264-018-4098-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int Orthop ISSN: 0341-2695 Impact factor: 3.075
Fig. 1Flow chart for inclusion and exclusion of patients
Fig. 2a The first point. b The second point. c The third point. d New coronal planes through three points were created
Fig. 3a The femoral neck was reduced medially to the distal fragment. b Medial cortices were integrated to each other. c The femoral neck was reduced laterally to the distal fragment. d Large gaps was wider than 4 mm within the medial cortices. e The anteromedial cortices of proximal fragment were anteriorly reduced. f The cortices were without displacement. g The anteromedial cortices were posteriorly reduced to the distal fragment. h Large gaps within the anteromedial cortices were wider than 4 mm
Fig. 4The constructed sphere fitted the contour of the femoral head properly and the cross-section of the sphere could be visualized on images in the three views
Fig. 5a L1 was the chord of the circle O and L2 was treated as the axis of the femoral neck. L3 was the axis of the femoral shaft. The angle formed between L2 and L3 was FNSA. b The distance between the point A and L4 was measured and designated as the FHH. c The green arrow marked was the Lmcn. dLmtc (marked by the orange arrow) was overlapping Lmcn and extending to the femoral head cortex. The difference between Lmtc and Lmcn was TCD
Patients demographics and operative data based on the group respecting coronal, sagittal, and combined reconstruction planes
| Description | Group C1 | Group C2 | Group S1 | Group S2 | Group 1 (both reconstruction) | Group 2 (not both reconstruction) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total number | 28 | 15 | 25 | 18 | 24 | 19 | ||||
| Gender | Females | 17 | 9 | 0.964 | 16 | 10 | 0.808 | 15 | 11 | 0.759 |
| Males | 11 | 6 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 8 | ||||
| Mean age (year) | 75.7 | 77.9 | 0.474 | 75.4 | 78.0 | 0.363 | 75.5 | 77.7 | 0.449 | |
| AO classification | 31-A2.1 | 7 | 7 | 0.179 | 8 | 6 | 0.058 | 7 | 7 | 0.124 |
| 31-A2.2 | 13 | 3 | 12 | 4 | 12 | 4 | ||||
| 31-A2.3 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 9 | 5 | 8 | ||||
| Fixation type | Gamma 3 | 7 | 1 | 0.264 | 6 | 2 | 0.462 | 6 | 2 | 0.462 |
| Intertan | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||
| PFNA | 19 | 12 | 16 | 15 | 16 | 15 | ||||
| TAD (mm) | 20.7 | 18.9 | 0.331 | 20.9 | 18.8 | 0.245 | 21.0 | 18.8 | 0.228 | |
| Change of FNSA (°) | − 0.88 | − 3.51 | 0.016* | − 0.73 | − 3.27 | 0.016* | − 0.68 | − 3.21 | 0.016* | |
| Sliding distance of cephalic nail (mm) | − 0.47 | − 3.47 | 0.006* | − 0.39 | − 3.09 | 0.004* | − 0.35 | − 3.00 | 0.003* | |
| Change of TCD (mm) | − 0.33 | − 0.01 | 0.528 | − 0.39 | 0.02 | 0.433 | − 0.42 | 0.04 | 0.364 | |
| Change of FHH (mm) | − 0.99 | − 2.77 | 0.026* | − 0.95 | − 2.53 | 0.041* | − 1.00 | − 2.39 | 0.072 |
Abbreviation: TAD, tip-apex distance; FNSA, femoral neck-shaft angle; TCD, tip-cortex distance; FHH, femoral head height
* P < 0.05
Functional data at the latest follow-up in the different reduction groups
| Clinical parameters | Coronal group | Sagittal group | Combined group | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | C2 | S1 | S2 | Group 1 (both reconstruction) | Group 2 (not both reconstruction) | ||||
| HHS (points) | 77 (67–87) | 73 (67–82) | 0.011* | 78 (67–87) | 74 (67–84) | 0.021* | 78 (67–87) | 74 (67–84) | 0.017* |
| TUG (sec) | 24 (19–35) | 26 (23–36) | 0.114 | 24 (19–35) | 26 (20–36) | 0.164 | 24 (19–35) | 26 (20–36) | 0.214 |
| P-P score (points) | 6.9 (4–9) | 6.5 (5–8) | 0.227 | 7.0 (4–9) | 6.3 (5–8) | 0.035* | 7.0 (4–9) | 6.4 (5–8) | 0.043* |
Abbreviation: HHS, Harris hip score; TUG, timed “Up & Go”; P-P score, Parker and Palmer score
* P < 0.05
Mechanical failures of patients in different reduction groups. P was obtained from continued adjusted chi-square test
| Complications | Group C | Group S | Combined group | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | C2 | S1 | S2 | C1S1 | C1S2 | C2S1 | C2S2 | ||||
| Yes | 1a | 4b | 0.043 | 0 | 5c | < 0.01 | 0 | 1d | 0 | 4e | 0.022 |
| No | 27 | 11 | 25 | 13 | 24 | 3 | 1 | 10 | |||
| Total | 28 | 15 | 25 | 18 | 24 | 4 | 1 | 14 | |||
aLoss of reduction, 1 case
bLoss of reduction, 2 cases; excessive sliding of cephalic nail, 2 cases
cLoss of reduction, 3 cases; excessive sliding of cephalic nail, 2 cases
dLoss of reduction, 1 case
eLoss of reduction, 2 cases; excessive sliding of cephalic nail, 2 cases