| Literature DB >> 35414068 |
Jian-Wen Huang1, Xiao-Sheng Gao1, Yun-Fa Yang2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is irresponsible if we disregard reduction quality to talk about cut-outs in intertrochanteric fractures (ITF) with internal fixation. The aim of this study is to analyze the risk-factors for cut-outs in geriatric ITF with cephalomedullary nailing after obtaining acceptable reduction.Entities:
Keywords: Cephalomedullary nailing; Cut-out; Intertrochanteric Fractures; Reductions; The elderly
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35414068 PMCID: PMC9004191 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05296-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1Three types of medial wall reduction. Anatomical reduction (a); Positive medial cortex support (PMCS) (b); Negative medial cortex support (NMCS) (c)
Fig. 2Patients’ flow chart
Fig. 3Measurements of radiological parameters. Measurements of TAD and CalTAD were shown on X-ray anteroposterior (AP) view (a) and lateral view (b) (TAD = CalTAD = ). Parker’s ratio index was calculated on AP view (c) and lateral view (d) (Parker’s ratio = )
Fig. 4Implant failure types. Implant failure types were shown as the white arrows. Cut-out (a), pending cut—out (b)
Fig. 5An example of pending cut-out. The neck-shaft-angle (NSA) was measured as 113.57° in the last radiograph on AP view (a), which had a more than 20° loss but no penetration or cut-out while comparing with the NSA right after the cephalomedullary nailing surgery (b)
Reliability between two independent observers for measuring variables
| Variable | ICC or κ | 95% CI | Reliability |
|---|---|---|---|
| Singh index | 0.561 | 0.430 to 0.692 | Moderate |
| Cleveland zone | 0.730 | 0.634 to 0.826 | Excellent |
| AO/OTA classification | 0.738 | 0.620 to 0.856 | Excellent |
| Parker ratio (AP) | 0.916 | 0.882 to 0.941 | Almost perfect |
| Parker ratio (Lat) | 0.924 | 0.893 to 0.947 | Almost perfect |
| Tip-apex distance | 0.906 | 0.868 to 0.933 | Almost perfect |
| Calcar reference tip-apex distance | 0.939 | 0.914 to 0.957 | Almost perfect |
AO/OTA AO Foundation and Orthopaedic Trauma Association, AP anteroposterior view, LAT lateral view, ICC intraclass correlation coefficient, CI confidence interval
Univariate analysis of demographic data
| Factor | Overall | Without cut-outs ( | Cut-outs | Crude OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | 82.0 [75.0, 86.0] | 81.0 [73.5, 85.0] | 86.0 [82.0, 89.5] | 0.043a | 1..09 (0.99 to 1.20) |
| Gender (%) | 0.310 | 2.26 (0.45 to 11.41) | |||
| Male | 46 (38.0) | 44 (39.3) | 2 (22.2) | ||
| Female | 75 (62.0) | 68 (60.7) | 7 (77.8) | ||
| Fracture site (%) | 0.460 | 1.67 (0.43 to 6.54) | |||
| Left | 68 (56.2) | 64 (57.1) | 4 (44.4) | ||
| Right | 53 (43.8) | 48 (42.9) | 5 (55.6) | ||
| Anesthesia (%) | 0.899 | 0.90 (0.18 to 4.59) | |||
| Spinal | 92 (76.0) | 85 (75.9) | 7 (77.8) | ||
| General | 29 (24.0) | 27 (24.1) | 2 (22.2) | ||
| ASA (%) | 0.313 | N/A | |||
| 2 | 53 (43.8) | 51 (45.5) | 2 (22.2) | ||
| 3 | 65 (53.7) | 58 (51.8) | 7 (77.8) | ||
| 4 | 3 (2.5) | 3 (2.7) | 0 (0) |
a Mann–Whitney U test, the results are shown as median [interquartile range]
b Chi-square test, the results are shown as number (percentage)
N/A not applicable
OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, ASA American Society of Anesthesiologists
Univariate analysis of radiological factors
| Factor | Overall | Without cut-outs ( | Cut-outs | OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AO/OTA (%) | 0.305 | N/A | |||
| 31A1 | 64 (52.9) | 61 (54.5) | 3 (33.3) | ||
| 31A2 | 52 (43.0) | 46 (41.1) | 6 (66.7) | ||
| 31A3 | 5 (4.1) | 5 (4.5) | 0 (0) | ||
| Singh index (%) | 0.544 | 1.56 (0.37 to 6.54) | |||
| ≤ 3 | 69 (57.0) | 63 (56.3) | 6 (66.7) | ||
| > 3 | 52 (43.0) | 49 (43.7) | 3 (33.3) | ||
| Fixation type (%) | 0.941b | 0.95 (0.22 to 4.01) | |||
| Helical blade | 39 (32.2) | 36 (32.1) | 3 (33.3) | ||
| Lag screw | 82 (67.8) | 76 (67.9) | 6 (66.7) | ||
| Lateral wall fracture (%) | 0.001b | 8.16 (1.88 to 35.36) | |||
| No | 107 (88.4) | 102 (91.1) | 5 (55.6) | ||
| Yes | 14 (11.6) | 10 (8.9) | 4 (44.4) | ||
| Nail position quality (%) | 0.072b | 4.14 (0.84 to 20.36) | |||
| Poor | 2 (1.7) | 2 (1.8) | 0 | ||
| Questionable | 13 (10.7) | 10 (8.9) | 3 (33.3) | ||
| Acceptable | 106 (87.6) | 100 (89.3) | 6 (66.7) | ||
| Parker’s ratio (AP) | 49.04 ± 8.44 | 48.49 ± 7.95 | 54.54 ± 12.44 | 0.193 | 1.09 (0.89 to 1.18) |
| Parker’s ratio (Lat.) | 49.32 ± 9.23 | 49.17 ± 8.52 | 51.16 ± 16.38 | 0.538 | 1.02 (0.95 to 1.11) |
| TAD, mm | 18.93 ± 4.90 | 18.65 ± 4.74 | 22.44 ± 5.76 | 0.025 | 1.16 (1.01 to 1.33) |
| CalTAD, mm | 22.51 ± 5.88 | 22.07 ± 5.68 | 27.99 ± 5.89 | 0.003a | 1.19 (1.05 to 1.35) |
a Student’s t-test, the results are shown as mean ± standard deviation
b Chi-square test, the results are shown as number (percentage)
OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, AO/OTA AO Foundation and Orthopaedic Trauma Association, AP anteroposterior view, Lat. lateral view, TAD tip-apex-distance, CalTAD calcar referenced tip-apex-distance
The results of multivariate logistic regression analysis
| Factor | Adjusted OR | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0.028 | 1.158 | 1.016 to 1.318 |
| Lateral wall fracture | 0.010 | 11.070 | 1.790 to 68.380 |
| Cleveland zone 1 to 4, 7 | 0.564 | 1.848 | 0.229 to 14.909 |
| TAD | 0.713 | 1.046 | 0.825 to 1.326 |
| CalTAD | 0.045 | 1.277 | 1.005 to 1.622 |
OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, TAD tip-apex-distance, CalTAD calcar-referenced tip-apex-distance
Fig. 6The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve shown the best threshold for CalTAD in preventing cut-outs was 24.72 mm (the area under the curve (AUC) = 0.769, Sensitivity = 74.1, Specificity 77.8, p = 0.001).