| Literature DB >> 35733116 |
Jiongming You1, Feng Wang1, Feng Li1, Yinsheng Wu1, Yong Wang1, Zifei Chen2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Displacement of the lesser trochanter (LT) is not uncommon after managing intertrochanteric femoral fractures and the influence of nonunion of the LT-fragment on clinical outcomes remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between the displacement distance and union of the LT-fragment and evaluate the influence of LT-fragment nonunion on hip function and complications.Entities:
Keywords: Fracture fixation; Fractures; Hip displacement; Hip fractures; Intertrochanteric fractures; Intramedullary; Lesser trochanter; Ununited
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35733116 PMCID: PMC9215053 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05534-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.562
Fig. 1(a) A 74-year-old male patient with displacement of the lesser trochanter (LT) following intramedullary fixation of intertrochanteric fracture and the ratio of |(A-A1) |/A1 +| (B-B1) |/ B1 is 0.37. A was defined as the vertical distance from the tip of LT to the horizontal line of the acetabular apex on both sides. The horizontal displacement B was defined as the vertical distance from the tip of LT to the edge of a line drawn along the lateral border of the femoral cortex. The vertical and horizontal distance of the healthy side was considered as A1 and B1. L in figure means left side. (b) At 1-year follow-up, the LT-fragment showed nonunion, and the patient presented with excessive lateral migration of the blade and hip varus. L means left side
Fig. 2(a) A 68-year-old female patient with displacement of the lesser trochanter (LT) following intramedullary fixation of intertrochanteric fracture and the ratio of |(A-A1) |/A1 +|(B-B1) |/B1 is 0.23. (b) At 1-year follow-up, the LT-fragment showed union. R means right side
Characteristics of the patients
| Characteristics | Union group ( | Nonunion group ( | Mean difference, 95%CI | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||||
| Female | 20 (65%) | 16 (73%) | 0.7 (0.21; 2.24) | 0.528 |
| Male | 11 (35%) | 6 (27%) | - | |
| Age, year | 74.2 ± 7.0 | 73.1 ± 7.0 | 1.1 (-2.41; 4.7) | 0.519 |
| BMD (T scores) | -2.01 ± 0.72 | -1.96 ± 0.72 | 0(-0.48;0.37) | 0.807 |
| AO/OTA classification | ||||
| A1 | 7 (23%) | 4 (18%) | - | 0.813 |
| A2 | 20 (64%) | 16 (73%) | - | |
| A3 | 4 (13%) | 2 (9%) | - | |
| Fracture side | ||||
| Left | 21 (68%) | 13 (59%) | 1.5, (0.47;4.53) | 0.518 |
| Right | 10 (32%) | 9 (41%) | - | |
| Reduction quality | ||||
| Good | 20 (65%) | 15 (68%) | - | 0.957 |
| Acceptable | 6 (19%) | 4 (18%) | - | |
| Poor | 5 (16%) | 3 (14%) | - | |
| Follow-up, months | 14.7 ± 2.2 | 14.3 ± 2.2 | 0 (-0.82;1.54) | 0.545 |
| Union of intertrochanteic fractures | ||||
| Union | 31 (100%) | 21 (95%) | 1 (0.96;1.15) | 0.415 |
| Nonunion | 0 | 1 (5%) | ||
Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or n (%)
BMD Bone mineral density, AO/OTA Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen Foundation and Orthopedic Trauma Association
Hip function and postoperative complications at final follow-up
| Characteristics | Union group ( | Nonunion group ( | Mean difference, 95%CI | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harris hip score | 76.4 ± 9.1 | 68.8 ± 15.4 | 6.6 (-0.17; 13.36) | 0.056 |
| Pain | 40.5 ± 1.4 | 39.5 ± 3.3 | 1.1 (-0.25; 2.38) | 0.111 |
| Functional disability | 35.1 ± 3.0 | 35.6 ± 2.1 | -0.6 (-2.09; 0.94) | 0.452 |
| Deformity | 3.6 ± 0.6 | 3.6 ± 0.7 | 0 (-0.37; 0.36) | 0.954 |
| ROM | 4.0 ± 0.6 | 4.0 ± 0.7 | 0 (-0.37; 0.31) | 0.85 |
| Postoperative complicationsa | 9 (29%) | 13 (59%) | 0.3 (0.09; 0.9) | |
| Mechanical complications | 2 (6%) | 10 (45%) | 0.1 (0.02; 0.44) | |
| 0 | 1 (5%) | 1 (0.96; 1.15) | ||
| 1 (3%) | 5 (23%) | 0.1 (0.01; 1.05) | ||
| 1 (3%) | 4 (18%) | 0.2 (0.02; 1.45) | ||
| Other complications | 8 (26%) | 5 (23%) | 1.2 (0.33; 4.26) | 0.797 |
| Local soft tissue/wound | 2 (6%) | 1 (5%) | 1.5 (0.12; 17.04) | |
| Systemic/rest of the body | 6 (19%) | 4 (8%) | 1.1 (0.23; 4.4) |
Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or n (%), and data in bold indicate significant differences
ROM Range of motion
aThe same patient can contribute to more than one category
The measurements on plain film radiograph at 1-Day postoperative
| Characteristics | Union group ( | Nonunion group ( | Mean difference, 95%CI | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vertical displacement (A, mm) | 76.4 ± 9.1 | 69.8 ± 15.4 | 6.6 (-0.17–0.88) | 0.056 |
| Horizontal displacement (B, mm) | 59.9 ± 8.1 | 64.8 ± 7.7 | -4.9 (-9.22–0.58) | |
| Vertical distance of healthy side (A1, mm) | 82.7 ± 8.7 | 80.7 ± 5.0 | 2 (-2.13–6.19) | 0.291 |
| Horizontal distance of healthy side (B1, mm) | 51.5 ± 7.4 | 48.3 ± 4.5 | 3.2 (-0.35–6.75) | 0.076 |
| The ratio of displacement (|(A-A1) |/A1 +|(B-B1) |/B1) | 0.3 ± 0.1 | 0.5 ± 0.2 | -0.3 (-0.34–0.17) |
Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD), and data in bold indicate significant differences
Fig. 3(a) The ROC curve reflects the relationship between the true positive rate (sensitivity) and false positive rate (1-specificity). The area beneath the ROC curve reflects the likelihood of causing nonunion of LT. According to the ROC curve in our study, the area under the ROC curve was 0.933. After comprehensive consideration of sensitivity and specificity, we defined 0.35 as the critical value. (b) The distribution and cumulative curve of displacement ratios. *, ** and *** mean P < 0.05, P < 0.005 and P < 0.001 respectively. RD: Ratio of Displacement