Jain Pankaj, Maini Lalit, Mishra Puneet, Upadhyay Ashish, Agarwal Ajay
Department of Orthopaedics, Maulana Azad Medical College and Associated Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi 110002, India.
Injury. 2004 Oct;35(10):1031-8. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2003.09.039.
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.
本文呈现了一项对1998年1月至2001年12月期间23例同侧髋部和股骨干骨折治疗情况的回顾性研究。除2例患者外,其余所有患者均采用单一植入物即重建钉进行治疗。在2例采用“漏钉”技术固定股骨颈骨折的病例中,出现了股骨颈骨折的延迟诊断。所有采用重建钉治疗的患者均同时接受了两处骨折的手术,且在患者一般状况允许的情况下尽早进行了手术治疗。治疗延迟通常是由于合并有头部、胸部或腹部损伤。患者中有22例男性和1例女性,平均年龄为34.5岁。平均随访时间为30.9个月。股骨颈骨折有1例不愈合、1例缺血性坏死和1例股骨颈骨折内翻愈合。股骨干骨折有4例不愈合和6例延迟愈合。股骨颈骨折的平均愈合时间为15周,股骨干骨折为22周。在本系列中,股骨干骨折决定了总的愈合时间。涉及股骨干骨折的并发症比与股骨颈骨折相关的并发症更常见。与股骨颈并发症相比,股骨干并发症无论有无二次手术都更容易处理,股骨颈并发症通常需要更广泛的手术。这强调了在评估、治疗和术后护理中认识到这种复杂损伤两个组成部分的重要性和严重性的必要性。我们得出结论,尽管技术要求较高,但重建钉是治疗股骨颈和股骨干合并骨折的一种可接受的替代方法,并发症发生率可接受且效果良好。