Subtrochanteric Fractures of The Femur: May a Short Nail Be a Reliable Option?

Document Type : RESEARCH PAPER

Authors

1 Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Madrid, Spain

2 Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón Calle del Dr. Esquerdo, Madrid, Spain

Abstract

Objectives: Treatment of subtrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur may be challenging due to their anatomical and biomechanical features. Intramedullary nails are the most frequently used devices, although there is no consensus concerning their optimal length. The aim of this study is to compare the functional and radiological outcomes of the fragility subtrochanteric fractures treated with short versus long cephalomedullary nails. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed including all over-65-year-old patients that underwent surgery with a cephalomedullary nail between January 2013 to December 2020 due to a subtrochanteric fracture. The primary outcome was the presence of mechanical complications (cut out, cut in, varus consolidation, nonunion and nail breakage). Accuracy of the reduction, distance from the fracture line to most proximal distal screw, operative time and Palmer Mobility score were also analyzed. Results: Ninety-five patients were included. There were not significant differences in complication rate, Parker mobility score nor quality of reduction between both cohorts. Patients with a good radiological reduction presented no complications, those with an acceptable reduction presented a complication rate of 35.5% and it raised to 53.3% in poorly reduced ones (P=0.002). The complication rate was higher in the <5cm distance group (58.33%) than in the >5cm distance group (22.64%) (P=0.014). Conclusion: Anatomical reduction may be the key factor in the management of subtrochanteric fractures, in order to avoid complications. The chosen device working length should also be taken into account to treat these challenging injuries. Level of evidence: IV

Keywords

Main Subjects


1. Arshad Z, Thahir A, Rawal J, et al. Dynamic hip screw fixation 
of subtrochanteric femoral fractures. Eur J Orthop Surg 
Traumatol. 2021; 31(7):1435-1441. doi:10.1007/s00590-
021-02895-4.
2. Hoskins W, Bingham R, Joseph S, et al. Subtrochanteric 
fracture: The effect of cerclage wire on fracture reduction and 
outcome. Injury. 2015; 46(10):1992-1995. 
doi:10.1016/j.injury.2015.07.001.
3. Yoon YC, Oh CW, Oh JK. Biomechanical comparison of 
proximal interlocking screw constructs in different 
subtrochanteric fracture models. J Orthop Sci. 2021; 
26(2):266-270. doi:10.1016/j.jos.2020.03.005.
4. Ong JCY, Gill JR, Parker MJ. Mobility after intertrochanteric 
hip fracture fixation with either a sliding hip screw or a 
cephalomedullary nail: Sub group analysis of a randomised 
trial of 1000 patients. Injury. 2019; 50(10):1709-1714. 
doi:10.1016/j.injury.2019.06.015.
5. Kilinc BE, Oc Y, Kara A, Erturer RE. The effect of the cerclage 
wire in the treatment of subtrochanteric femur fracture with 
the long proximal femoral nail: A review of 52 cases. Int J 
Surg. 2018; 56:250-255. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.06.035.
6. Amer KM, Congiusta D V., Jain K, et al. Complication Rates in 
Intertrochanteric Fractures: A Database Analysis Comparing 
Sliding Hip Screw and Cephalomedullary Nail. Arch Bone Jt 
Surg2024; 12(7):506-514. 
doi:10.22038/ABJS.2024.64188.3081.
7. Mattisson L, Bojan A, Enocson A. Epidemiology, treatment 
and mortality of trochanteric and subtrochanteric hip 
fractures: data from the Swedish fracture register. BMC 
Musculoskelet Disord. 2018; 19(1):1-8. doi:10.1186/s12891-
018-2276-3.
8. Kwak DK, Bang SH, Kim WH, Lee SJ, Lee S, Yoo JH. 
Biomechanics of subtrochanteric fracture fixation using short 
cephalomedullary nails: A finite element analysis. PLoS One. 
2021; 16(7 July):1-15. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253862.
9. Okcu G, Ozkayin N, Okta C, Topcu I, Aktuglu K. Which implant 
is better for treating reverse obliquity fractures of the 
proximal femur: A standard or long nail? Clin Orthop Relat 
Res. 2013; 471(9):2768-2775. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-
2948-0.
10. Dunn J, Kusnezov N, Bader J, Waterman BR, Orr J, Belmont PJ. 
Long versus short cephalomedullary nail for trochanteric 
femur fractures (OTA 31-A1, A2 and A3): a systematic review. 
J Orthop Traumatol. 2016; 17(4):361-367. 
doi:10.1007/s10195-016-0405-z.
11. Shannon SF, Yuan BJ, Cross WW, et al. Short versus Long 
Cephalomedullary Nails for Pertrochanteric Hip Fractures: A 
Randomized Prospective Study. J Orthop Trauma. 2019; 
33(10):480-486. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000001553.
12. Pervez H, Parker MJ, Pryor GA, Lutchman L, Chirodian N. 
Classification of trochanteric fracture of the proximal femur: a 
study of the reliability of current systems. Injury. 2002; 
33(8):713-715. doi:10.1016/s0020-1383(02)00089-x.
13. Shisha T. Parameters for defining efficacy in fracture healing. 
Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2010; 7(1):15-16.
14. Voeten SC, Nijmeijer WS, Vermeer M, Schipper IB, Hegeman 
JH. Validation of the Fracture Mobility Score against the 
Parker Mobility Score in hip fracture patients. Injury. 2020; 
51(2):395-399. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2019.10.035.
15. Mao W, Ni H, Li L, et al. Comparison of Baumgaertner and 
chang reduction quality criteria for the assessment of 
trochanteric fractures. Bone Joint Res. 2019; 8(10):502-508. 
doi:10.1302/2046-3758.810.BJR-2019-0032.R1.
16. Kasha S, Yalamanchili RK. Management of subtrochanteric 
fractures by nail osteosynthesis: a review of tips and tricks. 
Int Orthop. 2020; 44(4):645-653. doi:10.1007/s00264-019-
04404-z.
17. Park SY, Yang KH, Yoo JH, Yoon HK, Park HW. The treatment 
of reverse obliquity intertrochanteric fractures with the 
intramedullary hip nail. J Trauma. 2008; 65(4):852-857. 
doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e31802b9559.
18. Galanopoulos IP, Mavrogenis AF, Megaloikonomos PD, et al. 
Similar function and complications for patients with short 
versus long hip nailing for unstable pertrochanteric fractures. 
SICOT J. 2018; 4. doi:10.1051/sicotj/2018023.
19. Kumar M, Akshat V, Kanwariya A, Gandhi M. A prospective 
study to evaluate the management of sub-trochanteric femur 
fractures with long proximal femoral nail. Malays Orthop J. 
2017; 11(3):36-41. doi:10.5704/MOJ.1711.014.
20. Poutoglidou F, Krkovic M. Removal of a Broken 
Intramedullary Nail: A Case Report and Technical 
Description. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2022; 10(11):982-985. 
doi:10.22038/ABJS.2022.65407.3133.
21. Codesido P, Mejía A, Riego J, Ojeda-Thies C. Subtrochanteric 
fractures in elderly people treated with intramedullary 
fixation: quality of life and complications following open 
reduction and cerclage wiring versus closed reduction. Arch 
Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017; 137(8):1077-1085. 
doi:10.1007/s00402-017-2722-y.
22. Iwakura T, Niikura T, Lee SY, et al. Breakage of a third 
generation gamma nail: a case report and review of the 
literature. Case Rep Orthop. 2013; 2013:172352. 
doi:10.1155/2013/172352.
23. Cordero-Ampuero J, Peix C, Marcos S, Cordero G-G E. 
Influence of surgical quality (according to postoperative 
radiography) on mortality, complications and recovery of 
walking ability in 1425 hip fracture patients. Injury. 2021; 52 
Suppl 4:S32-S36. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2021.02.037.
24. Ekström W, Németh G, Samnegård E, Dalen N, Tidermark J. 
Quality of life after a subtrochanteric fracture: a prospective 
cohort study on 87 elderly patients. Injury. 2009; 40(4):371-
376. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2008.09.010.
25. Bel JC. Pitfalls and limits of locking plates. Orthop Traumatol 
Surg Res. 2019; 105(1S):S103-S109. 
doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2018.04.031.
26. Leemans R. Proximal femoral nail failure in a subtrochanteric 
fracture: The importance of fracture to distal locking screw 
distance. Injury Extra. 2007; 38:445-450. 
doi:10.1016/j.injury.2007.03.015.