1 Introduction
Subtrochanteric fracture is an orthopedic injury that is commonly seen in elderly patients and is associated with a profound difficulty of management because of the high rate of nonunion and failure of internal fixation.[1–3] [4–7]
The classification of subtrochanteric fractures is debatable[8–11] [11] [12–14]
Fixation systems for subtrochanteric fractures include extramedullary systems, such as the dynamic hip screw (DHS),[15–18] [19–33] [34–37]
The Gamma Nail, a relatively new intramedullary nail system, was introduced by Grosse in the 1990s.[19,38,39] subtrochanteric fracture . Moreover, it has been found to favorably address outcomes in pathological hip fractures.[22,40] [26,41–44] [21,45]
Despite the increasing use of TGLN and INTERTAN in the clinic, a comparison of their applications in complex types of subtrochanteric fracture (i.e., Seinsheimer Type V) has not been undertaken. The Seinsheimer Type V subtrochanteric fracture is different from other subtypes of subtrochanteric fracture . Although their incidence is not high, these fractures involve both the intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric areas, and have a large fracture span. The management of such fractures involves internal fixation to fix the 2 fractures; therefore, the choice of an internal fixation system is particularly important. Herein, we report our experience with these 2 systems together with a side-by-side comparison.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Ethics statement
This study was carried out in accordance with the guidelines for the care for human subjects adopted by the First Hospital of Jilin University; the study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the First Hospital of Jilin University (ref. no. 2012/026); and written informed consent was obtained from all participants.
2.2 Patients
The inclusion criteria for this study were patients 60 years of age or older, with Seinsheimer Type V closed subtrochanteric fracture that was surgically treated with TGLN or INTERTAN. Patients with high-energy trauma, open fractures, multiple injuries, pathologic fractures, an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scoring of 5, severe cognitive dysfunction, and those who were nonambulant were excluded.
The primary assessment included evaluation of cognitive function, based on the Simple Portable Mental State Questionnaire (SPMSQ),[46] [47]
In total, 28 patients with 28 Seinsheimer Type V closed subtrochanteric fractures were recruited for this study. The Type V Seinsheimer fracture was defined as a fracture wherein the fracture line traversing the femur was situated mainly within 7 cm of the femur distal to the lower margin of the lesser trochanter, with 4 or more fragments and the greater trochanter involved.[11]
2.3 Medical devices
The TGLN was manufactured by Stryker Trauma Gmbh Company (Schonkirchen, Germany), and the INTERTAN nail system was manufactured by Smith & Nephew, Inc (Memphis, TN).
2.4 Procedures
Three surgeons chose from 2 methods based on their personal preferences. All of the hospitalized patients were operated on under general anesthesia within 5 days of injury. Patients in the TGLN group were placed in the supine position, under continuous cutaneous traction with internal rotation for closed reduction. The junction of the top one-third and bottom two-thirds of the greater trochanter was selected as the nail-access site. A guide needle was introduced into the marrow cavity of the femur, the cavity was exposed, and the fractured end was internally reduced; this was followed by a widening of the marrow cavity and insertion of the TGLN (Stryker). The fracture reduction was adjusted under X-ray visualization for optimal alignment. Similar techniques were used to install the lag screw (Fig. 1 ). The length of the nail was determined by the location of the fracture and the length of the femur, and was situated at least 8 cm from the fracture line and, preferably, to the area of the femoral supracondyle.
Figure 1: Fixation of Seinsheimer Type V subtrochanteric femoral fracture with a TGLN. Preoperative anteroposterior pelvis x-ray shows Seinsheimer Type V subtrochanteric fractures on the left proximal femur with significant displacement of the fracture ends (A). Postoperative anteroposterior and lateral view radiographs of the left femur demonstrated excellent fracture reduction and internal fixation in place (B, C).
A similar procedure was undertaken for fracture fixation using INTERTAN. After the guide needle reached the femoral neck and the center of the femoral head, the anti-rotation rod was inserted along the guide needle and the lag screw was screwed in at an appropriate length. Then, the anti-rotation rod was removed, and the compression screw was screwed in manually beneath the lag screw (Fig. 2 ).
Figure 2: Fixation of Seinsheimer Type V subtrochanteric femoral fracture with an INTERTAN device. The fracture (A) was reduced and fixed appropriately (B, C).
Radiography of the hip joint was conducted in anteroposterior and lateral projections before the operation, during distraction, after apparatus removal, and throughout the follow-up period. Manual drawings on x-rays were used to assess radiographic parameters. The tip–apex distances (TADs) were calculated from the sum of the distances between the tip of the lag screw to the apex of the femoral head on both the anteroposterior and lateral views. The caput–collum–diaphyseal (CCD) angle that formed between the neck of the femur and its shaft were calculated on the anteroposterior views.
The surgical area was covered with surgical foil, together with a drainage bag to collect blood. The actual blood volume in the bag and in the surgical swabs was recorded and determined by subtracting the total quantity of irrigants from the total volume of the blood bag and the surgical swab. The blood in the swab was determined by weight, on the assumption that 1 g blood equates to 1 mL blood.
2.5 Postoperative management
A bolus of antibiotics was used postoperatively for prophylaxis. Low-dose heparin was administered to prevent deep vein thrombosis. All patients were instructed to undertake active early quadriceps movement and continuous passive motion (CPM) limb exercises. Partial weight bearing was allowed according to each patient's individual health status from 2 weeks to 2 months. On the basis of the radiological status, full weight bearing was normally allowed 12 weeks after surgery. Anteroposterior and lateral views on radiography were acquired at follow-up visits at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after surgery. All implant position changes, fixation failures, wound complications, pain in the hip, walking ability, Harris Hip Score, and complications were recorded.
2.6 Statistical analysis
Quantitative data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Comparative analysis of quantitative data was undertaken by t test, whereas categorical data were analyzed using the Chi-square test. All statistical analyses were conducted with the SPSS 19.0 software (SPSS version 19.0, Armonk, NY: IBM Corp). P < .05 was considered indicative of statistical significance.
3 Results
Patient demographics as well as preoperative clinical and subjective parameters are summarized in Table 1 . There were no significant between-group differences in gender, age, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, and fracture side. The general physical health of the patient was assessed by the attending anesthesiologist based on the ASA score. There were no patients with an ASA score 5, those who were not expected to live for 24 hours regardless of surgical intervention.
Table 1: Patient demographics.
Intraoperative data are summarized in Table 2 . The mean waiting time to surgery, operating time, and hospital stay were 1.1 (range 0–4) days, 57.2 (range 25–103) minutes, and 8.1 (range 2–17) days in the TGLN group and 1.3 (range 0–5) days, 90.5 (range 50–132) minutes, and 8.4 (range 2–17) days in the INTERTAN group, respectively. The mean blood loss was 140 (range 10–300) mL in the TGLN group and 255 (range 50–450) mL in the INTERTAN group.
Table 2: Intraoperative data.
Our data showed that the operation duration was shorter and there was less intraoperative blood loss in the TGLN group, compared with the INTERTAN group (P < .05). No significant differences were observed with regard to hospital stay.
The difficulty of fracture reduction was not significantly different between the 2 groups. Semi-open reduction and temporary fixation (bone-holding forceps or cerclage wire) were required in 5 cases (38.5%) in the TGLN group and in 4 cases (33.3%) in the INTERTAN group. There were no other intraoperative complications, such as femoral shaft fractures, in the study groups nor was supplementary fixation required.
All complications for the INTERTAN and TGLN groups are summarized in Table 3 . In the TGLN group, a fracture united in 8° valgus, whereas, in the INTERTAN group, there was a deformity with 5° varus. The mean time to union was 15 and 16 weeks in the TGLN and INTERTAN groups, respectively (P = .163). In the TGLN group, a contralateral femoral neck fracture occurred 6 months after the operation in a new injury and was treated with hemiarthroplasty. No infection, implant failure, implant cut out, distal nail perforation, readmission, or reoperation occurred in this study.
Table 3: List of all complications and outcomes.
A functional evaluation of 25 cases at the final follow-up showed that 76.9% of the patients in the TGLN group and 66.7% in the INTERTAN group regained their initially walking ability. Other patients needed 1 or 2 crutches to walk. Table 3 summarizes the clinical and functional outcomes at the final follow-up. The mean Harris Hip Score was 82.7 for the TGLN group and 79.8 for the INTERTAN group, and there were no significant between-group differences (P = .147).
All of the 25 patients were postoperatively followed up for 6 to 18 (mean 12) months. Our data showed that the TGLN group had shorter operation duration and less intraoperative blood loss, compared with the INTERTAN group (P < .05). However, there was no significant difference in the bone-healing time or Harris Hip Scores on last follow-up between the study groups (P > .05, Table 1 ). All patients had primary healing of the incision, without complications such as postoperative infection, deep venous thrombosis, or fat embolism syndrome.
4 Discussion
The term subtrochanteric fractures refers to a fracture between the lesser trochanter and the isthmus of the femoral shaft, a transitional zone of cancellous to cortical bone and an area with unfavorable blood supply.[34,48] [49–51] subtrochanteric fracture , and is difficult to manage surgically.[11,12,52]
Subtrochanteric fractures can be fixed with extramedullary or intramedullary methods. Devices commonly used in intramedullary fixation include Gamma intramedullary nail, PFN, and PFNA; devices for extramedullary fixation include gooseneck nail, Richards nail, DCS, and Arbeitsgemeinschaftfür Osteosynthesefragen (AO) steel plate. The gooseneck nail, AO steel plate, and Richards nail are unsuitable for management of subtrochanteric fracture , because their rates for fixation failure and nonunion are as high as 20%.[53,54] [53] [55]
The TGLN and INTERTAN are more advanced systems for intramedullary nailing fixation in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. These 2 fixation nail systems effectively fix the femoral head and neck with the intertrochanteric area, subtrochanteric area, and femoral shaft with superior overall stability of the fractured bone, thereby ensuring early functional exercise and ambulation. Both of these nailing systems can use the apex of the greater trochanter for entering the marrow cavity, which minimizes trauma caused by operation and preserves the blood supply around the fracture site. The proximal shape of the INTERTAN system is trapezoidal, and reaming produces more cut bone. As with the double-nail system, there was a greater amount of bone loss in the femoral head and neck. INTERTAN proximal interlocking nails enhance the rotational stability of the head and neck, reduce the incidence of postoperative complications such as pullout or retraction of the nails, head and neck varus collapse, and shortening of the femoral neck. The TGLN, with its anti-rotation screw and head–neck lag screws, facilitates fracture healing by enabling dynamic compression of the fracture section and, thus, effectively improves the rotational stability of the head-and-neck fracture block. In vitro biomechanical experiments demonstrated that INTERTAN was superior to the TGLN; however, clinical studies have not found any significant differences.[45,54]
In this study, we observed significantly less blood loss and shorter duration of operation in the TGLN group. This difference could be because the TGLN system is a single-screw system, with greater operational ease, and causes less damage to the femoral head and neck as compared to the INTERTAN system. We speculated that the shorter operation time was due to less proximal locking and because the distal locking could be assisted by the target device. More intraoperative blood loss in the INTERTAN group was attributed to the longer operation time, the proximal trapezoidal shape mismatch with the reamed cylindrical tunnels, and more bone loss during reaming. Moreover, semi-open reduction procedures affected the results in both groups. No fixation failure or varus deformity was observed in this study, indicating good biomechanical stability with both systems. This is in line with the results reported previously; the anti-bending and anti-torsion abilities of the 2 systems are sufficient to support healing of the fractured bone.[56]
This study had some limitations. First, the study sample was relatively small, and may have affected the efficacy of statistical analysis. Second, the follow-up period was relatively short. The long-term effect of the 2 surgical managements could not be determined. Third, all surgeries were not conducted by the same surgeon. Fourth and last, blood loss was not precisely calculated, and the measured blood loss represents only the external blood loss and not the total blood loss, because it was impossible to quantify occult blood loss at the surgical site.
5 Conclusion
Both TGLN and INTERTAN nails are therapeutically effective for the management of Seinsheimer Type V hip fractures in elderly patients, with excellent clinical outcomes. Although the TGLN was superior to INTERTAN in terms of the operative time and intraoperative blood loss, the small sample size affected the strength of this finding.
Author contributions
Conceptualization: Lei Tan.
Data curation: Tianhao Zhao.
Formal analysis: Yuying Li.
Methodology: Zongbing Cao.
Writing – original draft: Dong Zhu.
Writing – review & editing: Yan-Hui Li.
References
[1]. Hoskins W, Bingham R, Joseph S, et al.
Subtrochanteric fracture : the effect of cerclage wire on fracture reduction and outcome. Injury 2015;46:1992–5.
[2]. Huang SY, Grimsrud CD, Provus J, et al. The impact of
subtrochanteric fracture criteria on hip fracture classification. Osteoporos Int 2012;23:743–50.
[3]. Vanderschot P, Vanderspeeten K, Verheyen L, et al. A review on 161 subtrochanteric fractures--risk factors influencing outcome: age, fracture pattern and fracture level. Unfallchirurg 1995;98:265–71.
[4]. Tarazona-Santabalbina FJ, Aguilella-Fernandez L. Bisphosphonate long-term treatment related bilateral subtrochanteric femoral fracture. Can teriparatide be useful? Aging Clin Exp Res 2013;25:605–9.
[5]. Pollock FH, Bethea A, Samanta D, et al. Readmission within 30 days of discharge after hip fracture care. Orthopedics 2015;38:e7–13.
[6]. Bronson WH, Kaye ID, Egol KA. Atypical femur fractures: a review. Curr Osteoporos Rep 2014;12:446–53.
[7]. Maheshwari R, Acharya M, Monda M, et al. Factors influencing mortality in patients on antiplatelet agents presenting with proximal femoral fractures. J Orthop Surg 2011;19:314–6.
[8]. Mears SC. Classification and surgical approaches to hip fractures for nonsurgeons. Clin Geriatr Med 2014;30:229–41.
[9]. Lundy DW. Subtrochanteric femoral fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2007;15:663–71.
[10]. Sims SH. Subtrochanteric femur fractures. Orthop Clin North Am 2002;33:113–26. viii.
[11]. Seinsheimer F. Subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1978;60:300–6.
[12]. Song XZ, Chen W, Zheng J. [Treatment of Seinsheimer type V subtrochanteric femoral fractures with inversive LISS plate combined with steel wire]. Zhongguo Gu Shang 2014;27:697–9.
[13]. Jansen H, Doht S, Frey SP, et al. Subtrochanteric femoral fractures: influence of patient age on fracture type and mobility. J Orthop Sci 2013;18:451–5.
[14]. Dubrana F, Poureyron Y, Tram J, et al. [Long gamma nail for the treatment of
subtrochanteric fracture of the femur]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 2002;88:264–70.
[15]. Yadav S, Sinha S, Luther E, et al. Comparison of extramedullary and intramedullary devices for treatment of subtrochanteric femoral fractures at tertiary level center. Chin J Traumatol 2014;17:141–5.
[16]. Parker MJ, Das A. Extramedullary fixation implants and external fixators for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;2:CD000339.
[17]. Kuzyk PR, Bhandari M, McKee MD, et al. Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation for subtrochanteric femur fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2009;23:465–70.
[18]. Hoffmann R, Sudkamp NP, Schutz M, et al. [Current status of therapy of subtrochanteric femoral fractures]. Unfallchirurg 1996;99:240–8.
[19]. Georgiannos D, Lampridis V, Bisbinas I. Subtrochanteric femoral fractures treated with the Long Gamma3((R)) nail: a historical control case study versus Long trochanteric Gamma nail((R)). Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2015;101:675–80.
[20]. Rether JR, Hontzsch D. [Femoral nailing using a helical nail shape (LFN((R)))]. Oper Orthop Traumatol 2014;26:487–96.
[21]. Matre K, Vinje T, Havelin LI, et al. TRIGEN INTERTAN intramedullary nail versus sliding hip screw: a prospective, randomized multicenter study on pain, function, and complications in 684 patients with an intertrochanteric or
subtrochanteric fracture and one year of follow-up. J Bone Jt Surg Am 2013;95:200–8.
[22]. Parker MJ, Handoll HH. Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;CD000093.
[23]. Hohendorff B, Meyer P, Menezes D, et al. [Treatment results and complications after PFN osteosynthesis]. Unfallchirurg 2005;108:938940, 941-936 passim.
[24]. Broos PL, Reynders P. The use of the unreamed AO femoral intramedullary nail with spiral blade in nonpathologic fractures of the femur: experiences with eighty consecutive cases. J Orthop Trauma 2002;16:150–4.
[25]. Krause D, Phillip J, Lucke C. [Surgical outcome in subtrochanteric fractures. A study over 15 years]. Unfallchirurg 1996;99:196–201.
[26]. Stapert JW, Geesing CL, Jacobs PB, et al. First experience and complications with the long Gamma nail. J Trauma 1993;34:394–400.
[27]. Weikert DR, Schwartz HS. Intramedullary nailing for impending pathological subtrochanteric fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1991;73:668–70.
[28]. Bulhoff H, David A, Ekkernkamp A. [Various possibilities for managing subtrochanteric fractures]. Zentralbl Chir 1995;120:881–6.
[29]. Cole JD, Ansel LJ. Intramedullary nail and lag-screw fixation of proximal femur fractures. Operative technique and preliminary results. Orthop Rev 1994;(suppl):35–44.
[30]. Hagglund G, Lidgren L, Nordstrom B. Intramedullary Ender nailing combined with Parham's modified band in the treatment of subtrochanteric femoral fractures. Report of four cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1982;100:131–3.
[31]. Henry SL, Werner J, Seligson D. Intramedullary fixation of subtrochanteric fractures with the Williams Y-nail: report of three cases. J Orthop Trauma 1988;2:139–45.
[32]. Scherfel T. A new type of intramedullary nail for the internal fixation of subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. Int Orthop 1985;8:255–61.
[33]. Kopp P. [Closed bone marrow splint-fixation of the
subtrochanteric fracture ]. Zentralbl Chir 1975;100:1275–7.
[34]. Joglekar SB, Lindvall EM, Martirosian A. Contemporary management of subtrochanteric fractures. Orthop Clin North Am 2015;46:21–35.
[35]. Herrera-Soto JA, Meuret R, Phillips JH, et al. The management of pediatric subtrochanteric femur fractures with a statically locked intramedullary nail. J Orthop Trauma 2015;29:e7–11.
[36]. Saini P, Kumar R, Shekhawat V, et al. Biological fixation of comminuted subtrochanteric fractures with proximal femur locking compression plate. Injury 2013;44:226–31.
[37]. Matre K, Havelin LI, Gjertsen JE, et al. Sliding hip screw versus IM nail in reverse oblique trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. A study of 2716 patients in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register. Injury 2013;44:735–42.
[38]. Goldhagen PR, O’Connor DR, Schwarze D, et al. A prospective comparative study of the compression hip screw and the gamma nail. J Orthop Trauma 1994;8:367–72.
[39]. Merenyi G, Kovacs A, Zagh I. [Preliminary experience with gamma nails]. Magy Traumatol Ortop Kezseb Plasztikai Seb 1994;37:319–27.
[40]. Lyddon DW Jr. The prevention of complications with the Gamma Locking Nail. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 1996;25:357–63.
[41]. Yoshino N, Watanabe Y, Takenaka N, et al. Implant failure of long Gamma nail in a patient with intertrochanteric-
subtrochanteric fracture . J Orthop Sci 2006;11:638–43.
[42]. Hesse B, Gachter A. Complications following the treatment of trochanteric fractures with the gamma nail. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2004;124:692–8.
[43]. Buhl K, du Bois YD, Lamade W, et al. [The long gamma nail--indications, technique and results]. Chirurg 2000;71:1107–14.
[44]. Rodriguez Alvarez J, Casteleiro Gonzolez C, Laguna Aranda R, et al. Indications for use of the long Gamma nail. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998;62–6.
[45]. Kreder HJ. Principles and evidence: the optimal treatment of pertrochanteric hip fractures: commentary on an article by Kjell Matre, MD, et al.: “TRIGEN INTERTAN intramedullary nail versus sliding hip screw. A prospective, randomized multicenter study on pain, function, and complications in 684 patients with an intertrochanteric or
subtrochanteric fracture and one year of follow-up”. J Bone Jt Surg Am 2013;95:e16(11-12).
[46]. Pfeiffer E. A Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire for the Assessment of Organic Brain Deficit in Elderly Patients[M]//Risk assessment for object conservation. Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, United Kingdom: 1975.
[47]. Owens WD, Felts JA, Spitznagel EL Jr. ASA physical status classifications: a study of consistency of ratings. Anesthesiology 1978;49:239–43.
[48]. Yoon RS, Donegan DJ, Liporace FA. Reducing subtrochanteric femur fractures: tips and tricks, do's and don’ts. J Orthop Trauma 2015;29(suppl 4):S28–33.
[49]. Briongos L, Sanudo S, Garcia-Alonso M, et al. Treatment of osteoporosis and hip fractures in a Spanish health area. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2013;17:266–8.
[50]. Ballas EG, Mavrogenis AF, Karamanis E, et al. Low-energy femoral shaft fractures after long-term alendronate therapy: report of seven cases. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2015;25:181–7.
[51]. Wolin EA, Banks KP, Vroman PJ. Bisphosphonate-associated atypical subtrochanteric femur fracture. J Nucl Med Technol 2015;43:72–3.
[52]. Saarenpaa I, Heikkinen T, Jalovaara P. Treatment of subtrochanteric fractures. A comparison of the Gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw: short-term outcome in 58 patients. Int Orthop 2007;31:65–70.
[53]. Ricci WM, Devinney S, Haidukewych G, et al. Trochanteric nail insertion for the treatment of femoral shaft fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2005;19:511–7.
[54]. Wiss DA, Brien WW. Subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. Results of treatment by interlocking nailing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1992;231–6.
[55]. Roberts CS, Nawab A, Wang M, et al. Second generation intramedullary nailing of subtrochanteric femur fractures: a biomechanical study of fracture site motion. J Orthop Trauma 2002;16:231–8.
[56]. Nuchtern JV, Ruecker AH, Sellenschloh K, et al. Malpositioning of the lag-screws by one- or two-screw nailing systems for pertrochanteric femoral fractures: a biomechanical comparison of Gamma3 and Intertan. J Orthop Trauma 2014;28:276–82.
