Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology 4/2015

01-05-2015 | Original Article

Complications of short versus long cephalomedullary nail for intertrochanteric femur fractures, minimum 1 year follow-up

Authors: Josh Vaughn, Eric Cohen, Bryan G. Vopat, Patrick Kane, Emily Abbood, Christopher Born

Published in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology | Issue 4/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Hip fractures are becoming increasingly common resulting in significant morbidity, mortality and raising healthcare costs. Both short and long cephalomedullary devices are currently employed to treat intertrochanteric hip fractures. However, which device is optimal continues to be debated as each implant has unique characteristics and theoretical advantages. This study looked to identify rates of complications associated with both long and short cephalomedullary nails for the treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed charts from 2006 to 2011, and we identified 256 patients were identified with AO class 31.1–32.3 fractures. Sixty were treated with short nails and 196 with long nails. Radiographs and charts were then analysed for failures and hardware complications.

Results

Catastrophic failure and hardware complication rates were not statistically different between short or long cephalomedullary nails. The overall catastrophic failure rate was 3.1 %; there was a 5 % failure rate in the short-nail group compared with a 2.6 % failure rate in the long-nail group (p = 0.191). There was a 3.33 % secondary femur fracture rate in the short-nail group, compared with none in the long-nail cohort (p = 0.054). The rate of proximal fixation failure was 1.67 % for the short-nail group and 2.0 % in the long-nail group (p = 0.406).

Discussion

Our data suggests equivocal outcomes as measured by similar catastrophic failure rate between both short and long cephalomedullary nails for intertrochanteric femur fractures. However, there was an increased risk of secondary femur fracture with short cephalomedullary nails when compared to long nails that approached statistical significance.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Brauer CA et al (2009) Incidence and mortality of hip fractures in the United States. JAMA 302(14):1573–1579CrossRefPubMed Brauer CA et al (2009) Incidence and mortality of hip fractures in the United States. JAMA 302(14):1573–1579CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Gullberg B, Johnell O, Kanis JA (1997) World-wide projections for hip fracture. Osteoporos Int 7(5):407–413CrossRefPubMed Gullberg B, Johnell O, Kanis JA (1997) World-wide projections for hip fracture. Osteoporos Int 7(5):407–413CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Adams CI et al (2001) Prospective randomized controlled trial of an intramedullary nail versus dynamic screw and plate for intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Orthop Trauma 15(6):394–400CrossRefPubMed Adams CI et al (2001) Prospective randomized controlled trial of an intramedullary nail versus dynamic screw and plate for intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Orthop Trauma 15(6):394–400CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Anglen JO, Weinstein JN (2008) Nail or plate fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: changing pattern of practice. A review of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Database. J Bone Joint Surg 90(4): 700–707 (American volume) Anglen JO, Weinstein JN (2008) Nail or plate fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: changing pattern of practice. A review of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Database. J Bone Joint Surg 90(4): 700–707 (American volume)
6.
go back to reference Radcliff TA, Regan E, Ripley DCC et al (2012) Increased use of intramedullary nails for intertrochanteric proximal femoral fractures in veterans affairs hospitals: a comparative effectiveness study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:833–840PubMed Radcliff TA, Regan E, Ripley DCC et al (2012) Increased use of intramedullary nails for intertrochanteric proximal femoral fractures in veterans affairs hospitals: a comparative effectiveness study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:833–840PubMed
7.
go back to reference Kokoroghiannis C, Aktselis I, Deligeorgis A et al (2012) Evolving concepts of stability and intramedullary fixation of intertrochanteric fractures—a review. Injury 43:686–693CrossRefPubMed Kokoroghiannis C, Aktselis I, Deligeorgis A et al (2012) Evolving concepts of stability and intramedullary fixation of intertrochanteric fractures—a review. Injury 43:686–693CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Davis J et al (1991) Pertrochanteric fractures treated with the Gamma nail: technique and report of early results. Orthopedics 14(9):939–942PubMed Davis J et al (1991) Pertrochanteric fractures treated with the Gamma nail: technique and report of early results. Orthopedics 14(9):939–942PubMed
9.
go back to reference Lindsey RW et al (1991) Early experience with the gamma interlocking nail for peritrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur. J Trauma 31(12):1649–1658CrossRefPubMed Lindsey RW et al (1991) Early experience with the gamma interlocking nail for peritrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur. J Trauma 31(12):1649–1658CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Norris R, Bhattacharjee D, Parker MJ (2012) Occurrence of secondary fracture around intramedullary nails used for trochanteric hip fractures: a systematic review of 13,568 patients. Injury 43(6):706–711CrossRefPubMed Norris R, Bhattacharjee D, Parker MJ (2012) Occurrence of secondary fracture around intramedullary nails used for trochanteric hip fractures: a systematic review of 13,568 patients. Injury 43(6):706–711CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Boone C, Carlberg KN, Koueiter DM et al (2013) Short versus long nail for intertrochanteric fracture. J Orthop Trauma Boone C, Carlberg KN, Koueiter DM et al (2013) Short versus long nail for intertrochanteric fracture. J Orthop Trauma
12.
go back to reference Parker MJ, Handoll HH (2008) Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD000093PubMed Parker MJ, Handoll HH (2008) Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD000093PubMed
13.
go back to reference Radford PJ, Needoff M, Webb JK (1993) A prospective randomised comparison of the dynamic hip screw and the gamma locking nail. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75(5):789–793PubMed Radford PJ, Needoff M, Webb JK (1993) A prospective randomised comparison of the dynamic hip screw and the gamma locking nail. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75(5):789–793PubMed
14.
go back to reference Saudan M et al (2002) Pertrochanteric fractures: is there an advantage to an intramedullary nail?: a randomized, prospective study of 206 patients comparing the dynamic hip screw and proximal femoral nail. J Orthop Trauma 16(6):386–393CrossRefPubMed Saudan M et al (2002) Pertrochanteric fractures: is there an advantage to an intramedullary nail?: a randomized, prospective study of 206 patients comparing the dynamic hip screw and proximal femoral nail. J Orthop Trauma 16(6):386–393CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Complications of short versus long cephalomedullary nail for intertrochanteric femur fractures, minimum 1 year follow-up
Authors
Josh Vaughn
Eric Cohen
Bryan G. Vopat
Patrick Kane
Emily Abbood
Christopher Born
Publication date
01-05-2015
Publisher
Springer Paris
Published in
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology / Issue 4/2015
Print ISSN: 1633-8065
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1068
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-014-1557-2

Other articles of this Issue 4/2015

European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology 4/2015 Go to the issue