Ipsilateral fractures of the femoral neck and shaft

Femoral shaft displacement and Winquist classification provide predictive characteristics for combined femoral neck and femoral shaft fractures

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study is to establish radiographic features and characteristics of patient injury in cases of femoral shaft fractures that predict the presence of ipsilateral femoral neck fractures (IFNFs).

METHODS

Patient data was retrospectively assessed from a single level I trauma center through the electronic health record using (Current Procedural Terminology) CPT codes for both isolated and combined ipsilateral femoral shaft and neck fractures. Demographic information, injury characteristics, and independently reviewed radiographic features were collected and compared against the same information from a group of isolated femoral shaft fractures. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for concomitant IFNFs and their respective odds ratios. A probability algorithm for assessing ipsilateral femoral neck fractures based on independent multivariate predictors was constructed and used.

RESULTS

A total of 113 patients with either isolated femoral shaft fractures or combined femoral shaft and IFNF (n = 33) met inclusion criteria and were identified for this study. Fracture displacement was most strongly associated with increased risk of combined injury with an aOR of 25.64 (95 %CI = 5.96-110.28) for every 100 % displacement. Motorcycle crash (MCC) was the mechanism associated with the highest risk of combined injury, with an aOR of 9.85 (95 % CI = 1.99-48.74). Combined injury was also correlated with lower Winquist score and presentation with a closed fracture, with aORs of 0.38 (95 %CI = 0.21 - 0.68) and 11.61 (95 %CI = 1.93-69.94), respectively. Presence of at least 3 of the statistically significant variables produced a positive predictive value (PPV) of ≥ 89 % for combined femoral shaft and IFNF.

CONCLUSIONS

Identification of combined femoral shaft and IFNF is of critical importance when caring for orthopedic trauma patients. While diagnosis remains a challenging task, MCC mechanism, >100 % fracture displacement, and lower Winquist classification were found to be associated with combined injuries. The combination of these variables might assist in predicting the probability of combined injury and potentially guide decision making on the appropriateness of obtaining single sequence MRI or implementing prophylactic femoral neck fixation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Clinical Algorithm for the Management of Ipsilateral Proximal and Shaft Femur Fractures Using Single or Dual Implants

Purpose of the study The current study had two goals: first, it compared the radiological and functional results of the ipsilateral shaft and proximal femur fractures treated by using two different methods, i.e., single implant vs dual implants. The second goal was to devise a clinical algorithm for guiding and managing such fractures. Methods This study was conducted in a level 1 trauma center and included 34 patients with concomitant ipsilateral fractures of the proximal femur and shaft of the femur. The patients were divided into two groups as per our clinical algorithm. Group I, comprising of 16 patients, were treated with a single implant like the proximal femoral nail (PFN) or proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA2). Group II of dual implants, comprising of 18 patients, were treated with two types of implants separately for proximal and shaft fracture. Results All patients were followed at monthly intervals up to six months, then at three monthly intervals up to one year, with a minimal follow-up of one year of every patient. On clinical evaluation by Friedman-Wyman criteria, in group I, seven patients had a fair outcome, eight patients had a good outcome, and one patient had a poor outcome, while in group II, eight patients had a fair outcome, nine patients had a good outcome, and one patient had a poor outcome. No patient developed non-union or avascular necrosis of the femoral head in any of the groups. Conclusion For concurrent ipsilateral diaphyseal and proximal femur fractures, both dual and single implants are equally effective alternatives if properly applied as per our clinical algorithm. Implant selection primarily depends on the pattern of injury, and our clinical algorithm can be a suitable guide for guiding the selection of implants.

Characteristics of Femoral Shaft Fractures That Predict Ipsilateral Femoral Neck Fractures

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to characterize radiographic features and fracture characteristics in femoral shaft fractures with associated femoral neck fractures, with the goal of establishing predictive indicators for the presence of ipsilateral femoral neck fractures (IFNFs).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort was collected from the electronic medical record of three level I trauma centers over a 5-year period (2017 to 2022) by current procedural terminology (CPT) codes. Current CPT codes for combined femoral shaft and IFNFs were identified to generate our study group. CPT codes for isolated femur fractures were identified to generate a control group.

RESULTS

One hundred forty patients comprised our IFNF cohort, and 280 comprised the control cohort. On univariate, there were significant differences in mechanism of injury (P < 0.001), Orthopedic Trauma Association (OTA)/Arbeitsgemeinshaft fur Osteosynthesefragen (AO) classification (P = 0.002), and fracture location (P < 0.001) between cohorts. On multivariate, motor vehicle crashes were more commonly associated with IFNFs compared with other mechanism of injuries. OTA/AO 32A fractures were more commonly associated with IFNFs when compared with OTA/AO 32B fractures (adjusted odds ratio = 0.36, P < 0.001). Fractures through the isthmus were significantly more commonly associated with IFNFs than fractures more proximal (adjusted odds ratio = 2.52, P = 0.011).

DISCUSSION

Detecting IFNFs in femoral shaft fractures is challenging. Motor vehicle crashes and motorcycle collisions, OTA/AO type 32A fractures, and isthmus fractures are predictive of IFNFs.

Comparison of reconstruction nails versus dual implants in the treatment of ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures in adults: a meta-analysis and systematic review

OBJECTIVE

There is no consensus on the optimal treatment for ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures. This meta-analysis aims to assess the effectiveness of reconstruction nails and dual implants in treating ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures to provide a basis for decision-making when selecting the optimal approach.

METHODS

Relevant articles were retrieved from Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases using the keywords "neck of femur", "shaft" and "fracture fixation" from inception until November 17, 2022. The screening process of the studies was conducted independently by two assessors, who assessed each study's eligibility and two assessors assessed the quality. Then compared differences in outcome measures using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of ten retrospective cohort studies were included. There were no significant differences in union time, union rate, union-related complications (malunion, nonunion, delayed union) of femoral neck and shaft fractures, osteonecrosis of the femoral head, and functional outcomes (Friedman-Wyman scoring system) (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our pooled estimates indicated that reconstruction nails and dual implants for ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures could yield satisfactory surgical results, and that there is no difference between the two treatment methods.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This meta-analysis was registered on the PROSPERO website (registration number: CRD42022379606).

Surgical management of bifocal femoral fractures: a systematic review and pooled analysis of treatment with a single implant versus double implants

INTRODUCTION

Fractures of the proximal femur accompanied by a fracture of the femoral shaft are relatively rare, with a reported prevalence between 1 and 12%. Multiple surgical options are available, consisting of treatment with a single implant or with double implants. Controversy exists about the optimal management. A systematic review and pooled analysis were performed to assess the most reliable treatment for bifocal femoral fractures of the femur.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was conducted on July 15, 2022. Selected studies were screened on title and abstract by two researchers independently, and full texts were read by both authors. Emphasis was put on adverse events such as postoperative infection, healing complications, malalignment, and functional outcome using either a single implant or double implants.

RESULTS

For the proximal femoral fractures, no significant difference could be confirmed for avascular necrosis of the femoral neck (5.1% for single implant and 3.8% for double implants), nonunion (6.4% for single implant and 7.8% for double implants), or varus malalignment (6.6% for single implant and 10.9% for double implants). This study also suggests that the number of implants is irrelevant for complications of the femoral shaft regarding the rates of postoperative infection and healing complications. Pooled rates of bone healing complications were 1.6-2.7-fold higher when patients were treated with a single implant, but statistical significance could not be confirmed. For hardware failure, revision surgery, leg length discrepancy, and functional outcome, no difference between the two groups was found either.

CONCLUSIONS

The pooled proportions of all postoperative complications had overlapping confidence intervals; thus, no inference about a statistically significant difference on the number of implants used for treating ipsilateral fractures of the femur can be made. Both treatment groups showed a similar functional outcome at the last moment of follow-up, with more than 75% of the patients reporting a good outcome.

Clinical outcomes and affecting factors of ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures - Multination, multicenter analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures and identify the risk factors associated with missed diagnosis of femoral neck fractures and clinical outcomes of this fracture.

METHODS

The ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures from seven centers were retrospectively reviewed. Data on injury mechanism, fracture pattern, and fracture classification; surgical factors including fixation method; and timing of detection of femoral neck fracture were analyzed. The clinical outcomes, complications, and the incidence of avascular necrosis of the femoral head (AVNFH) were reviewed. Risk factors for missed femoral neck fracture and complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 74 patients with an average age of 43.6 years were included. Of the femoral shaft fractures, 56.8% were type A, 21.6% were type B, and 21.6% were type C. Sixteen patients had an open fracture of the femoral shaft. Femoral neck fracture was initially missed in 27% patients and the timing of delayed diagnosis was at an average of 11.1 days after injury. For detecting femoral neck fractures, minimal displacement of the femoral neck fracture was a risk factor, whereas computed tomography (CT) was a protective factor. The incidence of AVNFH was 6.8% at an average of 36.8 months after injury. The AVNFH group had more displaced femoral neck fractures at the time of surgery, but there was no difference in the timing of diagnosis compared to non-AVNFH group. The femoral shaft showed considerable healing problems, with an average union time of 29.7 weeks and a 20.2% nonunion rate.

CONCLUSION

Ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures had a high rate of missed diagnosis, especially in minimally displaced fractures; however, CT was a protective factor. AVNFH occurred in 6.8% and was related to femoral neck fracture displacement, but not delayed diagnosis. The femur nonunion rate was high, which warrants attention.

Outcomes of Ipsilateral Femoral Neck and Shaft Fractures Treated With Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation 2

Ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures are relatively rare fractures, which most commonly occur in young adults following high-energy trauma. In most cases of such fractures, neck fracture is undisplaced and often of basicervical type. Many treatment methods have been described, but there is still no generalized consensus on the same. Cephalomedullary nails are one of the preferred modalities of treatment. A cephalomedullary nail-like proximal femoral nail antirotation 2 (PFNA 2) of recent design is being widely used currently. In this study, we present 13 cases of ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures treated with PFNA 2 implants. The advantages of the PFNA 2 system include reduced blood loss, reduced operative time, and fewer fluoroscopy shots. PFNA 2 is a biomechanically better implant than many cephalomedullary implants. It provides satisfactory results in ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures, especially where neck fracture is of a basicervical type. Some aspects have to be taken care of when employing PFNA 2, such as anatomical reduction, and length, angulation, and rotation of both neck and shaft.

Double fractures of the femur: a review of 16 patients

BACKGROUND

Double ipsilateral femoral fractures account for 1-9% of femoral fractures. There is no clear advantage between single or double implant osteosynthesis. We present a series of patients with double ipsilateral femoral fractures, to address the challenges in treatment, namely the implants for osteosynthesis and complications of treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively studied 16 patients (7 men, 9 women; mean age, 51 years) treated from January 2015 to December 2018. Motor vehicle accidents were the leading cause of injury. Types of fractures were pertrochanteric and shaft (6), pertrochanteric and distal (2), double shaft (3), neck and shaft (2), neck and distal (1), shaft and distal (1), and triple fracture including a pertrochanteric, shaft and distal (1). In five patients, two different implants were used (plate and screws, cannulated hip screws, femoral nail), whereas in 11 patients a long femoral nail was used.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients experienced union at a mean of 3 months (2-6 months). Two patients experienced nonunion: both had plate and screws osteosynthesis. One patient died 15 days after admission from polytrauma and another patient experienced central venous catheter thrombosis and pneumonia. Surgical complications (2 patients) included a thigh skin necrosis, and external fixator pin tract infection/infected non-union. Weight-bearing was delayed in all patients; full weight-bearing was allowed in 11 patients at 4 months postoperatively, and in four patients at 5 months.

CONCLUSION

Due to the rarity and the difficulty of standardization of double ipsilateral femoral fractures, there is variable information on the optimal osteosynthesis of the fractures and the outcome of the patients. It seems that closed reduction and long hip nailing is the treatment of choice, with few complications.

Ipsilateral proximal and shaft femoral fractures

PURPOSE

To study the management and evaluate anatomical and functional outcomes of patients with ipsilateral proximal and shaft femoral fractures.

METHODS

A retrospective, descriptive and analytic study lasted for ten years and a half ranging from January 1, 2005 to June 30, 2015. The following parameters were studied: epidemiology, fracture characteristics, therapeutic, anatomical and functional outcomes. The correlation between different parameters was analyzed with Fischer test. The significant threshold was defined for p value <0.05.

RESULTS

Ten medical files were registered. There were 7 men and 3 women, with a sex ratio of 2.33. The average age was 46 years (range: 29-62 years). It was about traffic road accidents in all cases. Motorcycle-motorcycle and motorcycle-car collision were most frequent. Average admission delay was 7 h (range: 1.5-24 h). Left side was most reached in 8 cases. According to Garden classification, there was type III cervical fracture in 2 cases, type II in 1 case and type IV in 1 case. According to Ender classification, there was type I trochanteric fracture in 3 cases, type VI in 2 cases and type VII in 1 case. According to AO classification, there was type A shaft fracture in 6 cases (A2 in 4 cases and A3 in 2 cases), type B in 2 cases (B1 in 1 case and B2 in 1 case) and type C in 2 cases (C1 in 1 case and C2 in 1 case). Average surgical delay was 28.7 days (range: 11-61 days). For proximal femoral fracture, Moore prosthesis was used in 1 case, blade plate 130° in 2 cases, long Gamma nail in 4 cases, double screwing in 2 cases and dynamic hip screw in 1 case. For shaft femoral fracture, blade plate 95° was used in 3 cases, low compressive plate in 2 cases. Osseous contention was achieved in 4 cases with long Gamma nail and in 1 case with long blade plate 130°. Nonunion of cervical fracture was achieved in 2 cases. The average osseous healing delay was 5.14 months (range: 3-12 months) for proximal femoral fracture and 5 months (range: 3-8 months) for shaft femoral fractures. According to Friedman and Wyman criteria, functional results were good in 4 cases, average in 4 cases and bad in 2 cases. Regarding implants, healing delay showed no statistic difference between one-implant group and two-implant group (p = 0.52), and among the patients with different functional outcomes (p = 0.52). Functional outcomes showed no statistic difference between one-implant group and two-implant group (p = 0.46).

CONCLUSION

Ipsilateral proximal and shaft femoral fractures are relatively uncommon in our daily activities. It is difficult to recognize proximal femoral fractures which are unnoticed. Results are generally good if the doctors take the two fractures into account in the management.

Special topic: Ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures--does evidence give us the answer?

Ipsilateral fractures of the femoral neck and shaft are rare, high-energy injuries that typically occur in young polytrauma patients. The associated fracture of the neck is often vertical in nature and is more frequently non-displaced than in isolated femoral neck fractures. Historically the diagnosis of an associated femoral neck fracture was delayed or missed in approximately one third of cases. Studies have shown that detection can be significantly improved with the implementation of a protocolized approach to hip imaging in all patients with femoral shaft fractures. Prompt recognition of an associated femoral neck fracture allows for timely stabilization and may decrease the risks of non-union and avascular necrosis. In contrast, failure to recognize a non-displaced or minimally displaced associated neck fracture prior to fixation of the shaft can lead to displacement, a decrease in neck fixation options, a technically challenging secondary procedure and increased risk of long-term sequelae. A vast array of treatment strategies have been described for this combined injury. Published options range from spica casting to open reduction and internal fixation of both fractures and include almost all conceivable combinations in between. While timely surgical stabilization is now universally recommended for both shaft and neck, no consensus exists as to the most appropriate method of fixation for either fracture. Most authors recommend prompt, but not emergent, surgery with priority given to anatomic reduction and stabilization of the neck fracture by either closed or open methods. Fixation of the shaft fracture follows as patient condition allows. The rare nature of this injury makes it very challenging to study and most published series' are retrospective with very small sample sizes. In short, no scientificallycompelling study is available to definitively support any one implant choice or method of stabilzation over another for the treatment of associated fractures of the femoral neck and shaft.

Surgical treatment of ipsilateral multi-level femoral fractures

Background

Concurrent ipsilateral fractures of the proximal and shaft of the femur are rare complex fracture combinations. In this prospective cohort study, we evaluated clinical and radiological long-term results after operative treatment using several surgical strategies: the so-called “rendezvous” surgical technique, e.g., the combination of retrograde intramedullary nailing and dynamic hip screw (DHS) osteosynthesis, or the all-in-one device technique, e.g., long cephalomedullary nail, compared with two non-overlapping implants (e.g., conventional technique).

Methods

In a 10-year-period from 2004 to 2013, we treated 65 patients with complex ipsilateral multi-level femoral fractures. Median age was 45 years (range 19–90 years). Fractures were classified according to the AO/OTA classification. Four patients died during intensive care unit treatment due to multi-organ failure prior to definitive osteosynthesis. Clinical long-term outcome using the functional system of Friedman/Wyman as well as radiological outcome was evaluated 2 years after trauma (range 13–42 months).

Results

All-in-one device was used in 36 patients, “rendezvous” technique in 9 patients, and the conventional technique in the remaining 16 patients. Two years after trauma, complete fracture healing was found in 57 out of 61 patients (“rendezvous”: 9, all-in-one device: 33, conventional: 15; p-value: 0.66). There was no significant difference regarding the complication rate in the cohort groups (“rendezvous”: 3, all-in-one device: 13, conventional: 5; p-value: 0.94). Using the functional assessment system of Friedman/Wyman 2 years after trauma, a good clinical result was found in 77.7% in the “rendezvous” group, in 77.8% in the all-in-one device group, and in 75% in the conventional group.

Conclusion

The indication for operative stabilization of ipsilateral multi-level femoral fractures is considered an urgent and emergency procedure. Based on the successful long-term results of this study, we prefer the “rendezvous” technique with fracture stabilization from distally to proximally. Both fracture components require stable fixation. It is advisable to stabilize the shaft fracture primarily using external fixation (damage control orthopedics) and the proximal femoral fracture using early definitive internal fixation. In a second and staged operation, the external fixator is removed and the shaft fracture is stabilized using retrograde nail osteosynthesis with overlapping of the DHS and nail implants.

Is reconstruction nailing of all femoral shaft fractures cost effective? A decision analysis

OBJECTIVES

Femoral shaft fractures are usually treated with anterograde or retrograde nails that typically do not provide femoral neck fixation. Ipsilateral femoral neck fractures occur with 2.5%-10% of femoral shaft fractures; 19%-55% of associated femoral neck fractures are missed with plain films and 5%-22% with computed tomography (CT). This study was performed to determine if routine reconstruction nailing of all femoral shaft fractures with or without occult femoral neck fractures is cost effective.

METHODS

A decision tree model examined the cost effectiveness of reconstruction nailing over standard intramedullary nailing for all femoral shaft fractures in which an associated femoral neck fracture was not identified on plain radiographs. As a base model, we assumed that 5% of shaft fractures had an ipsilateral femoral neck fracture, and 37% were missed and required further surgery. We assigned a small morbidity and additional cost ($680) for the use of a reconstruction nail and 2 screws. Model inputs including costs, clinical outcome probabilities, and health utilities were derived from the literature, estimated from institutional data, or assumed by the authors. Sensitivity analyses evaluated the effect of the rate of associated femoral neck fracture, the rate of missed femoral neck fracture, the complication rate of reconstruction screws, the cost of the extra reconstruction screws, and the utilities of each outcome on the incremental cost effectiveness (ICER) of both strategies. Current practice in cost-effectiveness analysis uses a threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained as cost effective. A secondary analysis of the use CT scans to reduce missed femoral neck fractures was also performed.

RESULTS

The base model showed that the placement of reconstruction nails in all isolated femur fractures was not cost effective. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the ICER was most sensitive to the cost of the reconstruction nail, hemiarthroplasty, and a missed femoral neck fracture. The ICER was affected by the rate of femoral neck fracture and the rate of missed femoral neck fracture. If the rate of missed femoral neck fractures was >38%, then reconstruction nailing was a cost-effective strategy. If the probability of an ipsilateral femoral neck fracture was >7%, then reconstruction nailing was cost effective. Protocolized CT scans had an ICER >$100,000. If the additional cost of the reconstruction nails was <$650, then it was cost effective to perform reconstruction nailing for all femoral shaft fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

Reconstruction nailing of femoral shaft fractures can be a cost-effective method to reduce the risks and morbidity of missed femoral neck fractures if the incremental implant costs are <$650. Routine reconstruction nailing is cost effective if the rate of associated femoral neck fracture is >7% or the rate of missed femoral neck fracture is >38%. CT scans are not a cost-effective strategy to reduce the risk and morbidity of missed femoral neck fractures if the cost is >$243. Weaknesses of this study include the reliance on low-powered studies and on estimations of some utilities and costs. To prevent the morbidity of missed or occult femoral neck fractures, the use of reconstruction nails for femoral shaft fractures is cost effective when the incremental costs of implants are <$650.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Ipsilateral basicervical femoral neck and shaft fractures treated with long proximal femoral nail antirotation or various plate combinations: comparative study

BACKGROUND

Although many treatment methods have been developed, controversy exists regarding the optimal management of ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures. The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the results of long proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA-long) and various plate combinations in the treatment of ipsilateral basicervical femoral neck and shaft fractures.

METHODS

Between January 2004 and May 2008, a total of 21 patients with ipsilateral basicervical femoral neck and shaft fractures were treated with PFNA-long or various plate combinations. We divided patients into two groups. Group I included 11 patients who underwent surgery with cancellous lag screws or dynamic hip screws (DHS) combined with compression plate fixation. Group II included 10 patients who underwent surgery with PFNA-long.

RESULTS

The average follow-up periods were 22.2 and 20.8 months for groups I and II, respectively. The average union times for femoral neck fractures in groups I and II were 15.6 and 16.0 weeks, respectively; and the average union times for shaft fractures were 21.1 and 20.3 weeks, respectively. There were eight good, two fair, and one poor functional result in group I and eight good, one fair, and one poor in group II. One case of implant failure and nonunion of the femoral shaft fracture occurred in group I. There were no significant differences in the functional outcomes or major complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both treatment methods achieved satisfactory functional outcomes in patients with ipsilateral basicervical femoral neck and shaft fractures. PFNA-long was a good option for the treatment of complex fractures, with the advantages of closed antegrade nailing with minimal exposure, reduced perioperative blood loss, and biological fixation of both fractures with a single implant.

Treatment for ipsilateral fractures of femoral neck and shaft

BACKGROUND

Concomitant ipsilateral femoral shaft and neck fractures present a challenge to the orthopaedic surgeon, and no consensus has yet emerged on the optimal treatment method. We report the results of a retrospective study of 43 patients with these complex fractures who were treated at a single Level 1 trauma centre.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study participants consisted of 28 males and 15 females with a mean age of 43 years. The mean follow-up period was 48 months. Four different treatment methods were used: (1) antegrade reamed intramedullary nailing of the shaft with cancellous screw fixation of the neck, (2) dynamic hip screw (DHS) fixation of the neck and low-contact dynamic compression plate (LCDCP) fixation of the shaft, (3) cancellous screw fixation of the neck and LCDCP fixation of the shaft, and (4) reconstruction nailing of both shaft and neck.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences in amount of blood loss, duration of surgery, total complication rate, nor clinical results were found among the four treatment methods. For femoral neck fracture, however, the complication rate of cannulated screw with antegrade intramedullary nailing fixation was 11 times that of DHS with LCDCP fixation.

CONCLUSIONS

Antegrade nail with screw fixation is not a recommended treatment method in patients with ipsilateral femoral shaft and neck fractures.

Accuracy of reduction of ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures--an analysis of various internal fixation strategies

OBJECTIVES

Controversy surrounds the selection of the proper internal fixation device for treatment of ipsilateral fractures of the femoral neck and shaft. The purpose of this study was to review a large consecutive series of patients to learn more about the efficacy of various internal fixation strategies in maintaining an excellent reduction of both fractures.

DESIGN

Retrospective multicenter.

SETTING

Two level 1 trauma centers.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS

Between 1989 and 2006, 40 consecutive patients underwent internal fixation of an ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fracture at 2 level 1 trauma centers. Thirty-seven of 40 patients (95%) with a mean age of 38 years (range, 18-73 years) had sufficient radiographs to assess accuracy of fracture reduction.

INTERVENTION

Patients with displaced femoral neck fractures were typically treated with 2 separate devices and underwent formal open reduction of the femoral neck. Patients with nondisplaced neck fractures were treated with closed reduction and fixation with either 1 or 2 devices based on surgeon preference. The femoral neck fractures were displaced in 21 patients and nondisplaced in 16 patients. Nine fractures were addressed with a single implant and 28 with 2 separate devices.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Radiographs were reviewed to evaluate the quality of reduction of both fractures. Clinical follow-up of 12 months or greater was available on 16 patients with a mean of 34.4 months (range, 12-112 months).

RESULTS

Thirty-six of 37 patients (97%) obtained or maintained excellent femoral neck reductions. The only poor neck reduction occurred in the case of a displaced femoral neck-shaft fracture treated with a single cephalomedullary implant. Thirty-five excellent (95%) and 2 poor shaft reductions were obtained. Both shaft malreductions occurred in comminuted shaft fracture patterns in which a single cephalomedullary device was used for both fractures. Performing internal fixation of both fractures with a single cephalomedullary device led to a significantly higher rate of fracture malreduction of one of the fractures (3 of 9) as compared with a 2-device strategy (0 of 28) (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Open reduction and internal fixation of a displaced femoral neck fracture followed by retrograde nailing of the femoral shaft allowed accurate reduction and uneventful union of both fractures in most patients. The use of a cephalomedullary device to address both fractures simultaneously led to a significantly higher rate of malreduction of one of the fractures.

A retrospective review of high-energy femoral neck-shaft fractures

OBJECTIVES

To determine the incidence of femoral neck fractures with high-energy shaft fractures and to determine whether there was a correlation of neck fractures with antegrade or retrograde intramedullary nailing. We also evaluated the timing of diagnosis and the treatment options and outcomes.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A retrospective review of patients with femoral shaft fractures treated at 8 level 1 trauma centers from 2001 to 2005. Two thousand eight hundred ninety-seven fractures were identified, and 89 patients had 91 femoral neck-shaft combinations (3.2%).

PATIENTS

Average age: 36 years (15-72 years) and average Injury Severity Score: 18 (9-66). Seventy-eight patients had associated injuries; 67 of 91 femoral neck fractures were discovered before nailing.

RESULTS

There were 24 missed femoral neck fractures, 11 discovered intraoperatively and 13 postoperatively. Of these 24 patients, 15 had retrograde fixation and 9 had antegrade femoral shaft fixation. There was a high rate of open femur fractures (34%) and an increased incidence of associated injuries (88%) with neck-shaft combinations. In 12 of 67 patients with a preoperative computed tomography scan, the scan did not demonstrate a femoral neck fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found a similar rate of neck-shaft combinations (3.2%), a higher rate of open fractures, and increased incidence of associated injuries compared with the literature. Most importantly, our data indicate that even with a negative preoperative computed tomography scan, a femoral neck fracture can be present. A trend also indicated more missed femoral neck fractures with retrograde nailing, which may be attributed to less fluoroscopic imaging of the hip with this technique. Patients with femoral shaft fractures should have good quality radiographs after femoral nailing to minimize the risk of missed femoral neck fractures.

Ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures: a retrospective analysis of two treatment methods

Background

No consensus exists regarding the optimal treatment of ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures. The three major issues related to these fractures are the optimal timing of surgery, which fracture to stabilize first, and the optimal implant to use. In an effort to find answers to these three key issues, we report our experience of managing 27 patients with ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures by using two different treatment methods, i.e., reconstruction-type intramedullary nailing and various plate combinations.

Materials and methods

We divided patients into two groups. Group I included 15 patients (13 males and 2 females) who were operated with cancellous lag screws or dynamic hip screws (DHS) for fractured neck and compression plate fixation for fractured shaft of the femur. Group II included 12 patients (11 males and 1 female) who were operated with reconstruction-type intramedullary nailing.

Results

Mean age was 33.2 and 37.9 years in group I and II, respectively. Mean delay in surgery was 5.9 and 5.4 days in group I and II, respectively. Average union time for femoral neck fracture in groups I and II were 15.2 and 17.1 weeks, respectively; and for shaft fracture these times were 20.3 and 22.8 weeks, respectively. There were 13 (86.6%) good, 1 (6.7%) fair and 1 (6.7%) poor functional results in group I. There were 10 (83.3%) good, 1 (8.3%) fair and 1 (8.3%) poor functional results in group II.

Conclusions

Both of the treatment methods used in the present study achieved satisfactory functional outcome in these complex fractures. Fixation with plate for shaft and screws or DHS for hip is easy from a technical point of view. Choice of the treatment method should be dictated primarily by the type of femoral neck fracture and the surgeon’s familiarity with the treatment method chosen. The femoral neck fracture should preferably be stabilized first, and a delay of 5–6 days does not affect the ultimate functional outcome.

Dynamic hip screw and compression plate fixation of ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures

PURPOSE

To evaluate surgical outcomes of ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures.

METHODS

Between April 1997 and September 2004, 29 men and 8 women (mean age, 37 years) underwent fixation of femoral neck and shaft fractures using a dynamic compression plate plus a dynamic hip screw or screws. There were 30 femoral neck and 7 pertrochanteric fractures. Functional results were assessed according to the Friedman and Wyman classification.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period was 49 months. Of the femoral neck fractures, 34 united in a mean of 4 months; 33 of them healed anatomically and one with a 6-degree varus angulation. No osteonecrosis of the femoral head was noted. Of the femoral shaft fractures, 32 united in a mean of 6 months, 5 were non-unions (2 persisted even after revision surgery). Seven patients developed infections (5 superficial and 2 deep), which resolved with debridement and antibiotic treatment. Functional results were good in 29 patients, fair in 5, and poor in 3.

CONCLUSION

The use of dynamic hip screws and compression plates for ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures is reliable in achieving bone union with few complications.

Diagnosis of femoral neck fractures in patients with a femoral shaft fracture. Improvement with a standard protocol

BACKGROUND

An ipsilateral fracture of the femoral neck is seen in association with 1% to 9% of femoral shaft fractures, and 20% to 50% of these injuries are missed initially. Recognition of an associated femoral neck fracture prior to stabilization of the femoral shaft fracture is imperative to avoid or minimize complications of displacement and osteonecrosis.

METHODS

A protocol to look for a femoral neck fracture in all patients with a femoral shaft fracture was instituted at a single level-I trauma center. This protocol consisted of a dedicated anteroposterior internal rotation plain radiograph, a fine (2-mm) cut computed tomographic scan through the femoral neck, and an intraoperative fluoroscopic lateral radiograph prior to fixation as well as postoperative anteroposterior and lateral radiographs of the hip in the operating room prior to awakening the patient. A chi-square analysis comparing pre-protocol and post-protocol fracture prevalences was used to assess the relative risk of missing an associated femoral neck fracture.

RESULTS

Two hundred and sixty-eight consecutive patients with a femoral shaft fracture formed the basis of the study group. Of 254 who were followed for at least two months, sixteen were identified as having an associated ipsilateral femoral neck fracture with use of the protocol. Thirteen associated femoral neck fractures were identified before the patient entered the operating room for definitive fixation, and twelve of them were identified with the fine-cut computed tomographic scan. One fracture was identified intraoperatively. There was one iatrogenic fracture and one delayed diagnosis of a femoral neck fracture. With this protocol, we reduced the delay in diagnosis by 91% as compared with our experience in the year prior to the initiation of the protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

In the presence of a femoral shaft fracture, evaluation of the femoral neck with fine-cut computed tomography and dedicated internal rotation hip radiographs significantly improves the ability to diagnose an associated femoral neck fracture.

Retrograde nailing with subsequent screw fixation for ipsilateral femoral shaft and neck fractures

INTRODUCTION

Although ipsilateral femoral shaft and neck fractures are difficult to treat, there is still no consensus on the optimal treatment of this complex injury. We report the results of treating the 17 fractures with a standard protocol of retrograde nailing for diaphyseal fractures and subsequent screw fixation for the femoral neck fractures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventeen injuries (16 patients) sustained femoral shaft fractures, which were treated with retrograde intramedullary nails and subsequent screw fixation. Femoral neck fracture was noted before the operation in all patients except one. A femoral shaft fracture was always addressed first with unreamed retrograde nailing. Then, the femoral neck fracture was treated by cannulated screws or dynamic hip screw according to the level of fracture.

RESULTS

The average time for union of femoral shaft fractures was 27.3 (14-60) weeks. Nonunion occurred in five patients, who required bone grafts or changes of fixation. The average time for union of femoral neck fractures was 11 (8-12) weeks. All united, except for one case of nonunion with avascuar necrosis, which was a Garden stage IV fracture. Functional results using Friedman-Wyman criteria were good in 16 cases, and fair in one. The only fair result was nonunion of the femoral neck, which had the joint arthroplasty.

CONCLUSION

Retrograde nailing of femoral shaft fractures can provide an easy fixation and a favorable result for ipsilateral femoral neck fractures.

Cephalomedullary interlocked nail for ipsilateral hip and femoral shaft fractures

A retrospective study of the management of 23 cases of ipsilateral hip and femoral shaft fractures, between January 1998 and December 2001, is presented. All except two cases were managed by a single implant, i.e. reconstruction nail. There was delayed diagnosis of femoral neck fracture in two cases where the "miss a nail" technique was used for fixation of the femoral neck fracture. All patients managed by reconstruction nail were simultaneously operated on for both fractures and operative treatment was executed as early as the general condition of the patient permitted. Delay in treatment was generally because of the associated injuries (head, chest or abdominal). There were 22 males and 1 female patient with an average age of 34.5 years. Average follow-up was 30.9 months. There was one case of non-union of the femoral neck fracture, one case of avascular necrosis and one femoral neck fracture united in varus. There were four cases of non-union and six cases of delayed union of femoral shaft fractures. Mean time for union of the femoral neck fracture was 15 weeks and for the shaft fracture was 22 weeks. In this series femoral shaft fracture determined the total union period. Complications involving the femoral shaft fracture were more common than those related to femoral neck fractures. Shaft complications were more manageable with or without secondary procedures as compared to femoral neck complications, which usually require more extensive procedures. This stresses the need to realise the significance and seriousness of both components of this complex injury, in evaluation, management and post-operative care. We conclude that, though technically demanding, reconstruction nail is an acceptable alternative for management of concomitant fractures of the femoral neck and shaft with acceptable rates of complications and good results.

Surgical treatment for ipsilateral fractures of the hip and femoral shaft

Concomitant ipsilateral femoral shaft and neck fractures are difficult to treat. There is still no consensus on the optimal treatment of these complex fractures. Forty-seven patients with these complex fractures were treated in Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital between the periods of 1982 and 1998. Our standard treatment protocol is plate fixation for femoral shaft fracture and lag screw or dynamic hip screw (DHS) fixation for hip fracture. Among 42 cases treated with this protocol, 34 were males and 8 were females with an average age of 36 years and average follow-up period of 55 months. We divided hip fractures into two groups: femoral neck fracture as group I and intertrochanteric fracture as group II. There were no non-union and osteonecrosis of the hip in either group. One diaphyseal non-union was observed in group I and four in group II. There were 92 and 76% good functional results in groups I and II, respectively. The result shows that our standard method can yield a reliable outcome in group I, but not in group II.

Noncontiguous fractures of the femoral neck, femoral shaft, and distal femur

BACKGROUND

Multifocal fractures of the femur are uncommon injuries and present unique management challenges. Combined ipsilateral fractures of the femoral shaft and femoral neck or the femoral shaft and distal femur have been described. The combination of noncontiguous ipsilateral femoral neck, femoral shaft, and distal femoral articular injuries, however, has not been described. The purposes of this report are to document the incidence and characteristics of this injury and to present a treatment rationale.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study conducted at a Level I trauma center.

RESULTS

Over a 5-year period, 1639 adult patients with femur fractures were definitively managed at the authors' institution. Five male and two female patients (average age, 43.3 years) sustained ipsilateral, noncontiguous fractures of the femoral neck, femoral shaft, and distal femoral articular surface (0.43%). All femoral neck fractures were vertically oriented. All distal femoral injuries were unicondylar. A variety of fixation methods were used, dependent on individual fracture characteristics. The femoral neck fractures were prioritized in all cases. Stabilization of the distal femoral articular surface was then performed before diaphyseal fixation in patients with sagittally oriented condylar fractures. Patients were followed for an average of 19.3 months. All fractures healed without the need for secondary procedures.

CONCLUSION

This injury constellation is rare. Open reduction and internal fixation of the displaced femoral neck fracture should be the primary focus of orthopedic management, followed by stable reduction and fixation of displaced distal femoral articular injuries. The diaphyseal fracture should be treated with a technique that does not jeopardize either the proximal or the distal fractures. Patients who are critically ill can be managed in a similar sequence over the course of several days, depending on their overall condition.

Complicated femoral shaft fractures

The treatment of femoral shaft fractures has become safe and reproducible since the advent of popularization of intramedullary nailing, however, many femoral shaft fractures are complicated by associated fractures, extensive comminution, extensive contamination, and arterial injury compartmental syndrome. Other conditions associated with the use of femoral nailing include femora nonunions, broken hardware, acute fractures with prior implants, and infections. The management of these complex femoral shaft fractures demands special techniques for successful outcome.