Soylemez Mehmet Salih, Oz Tayyar Taylan
Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Umraniye Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
North Clin Istanb. 2020 Nov 27;7(6):609-618. doi: 10.14744/nci.2020.08058. eCollection 2020.
We examined the clinical and radiological outcomes of femoral shaft fractures treated with two different intramedullary nail designs using either greater trochanteric or trochanteric fossa entrance.
The medical records of patients undergoing operations for a shaft fracture either with a nail with trochanteric entrance or trochanteric fossa entrance were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were: having the necessary medical records including radiographic images and follow-up data, at least 12 months of follow-up, skeletal maturity (≥16 years of age) not having osteoporosis (≤60 years of age). Exclusion criteria were: pathological fractures, fragility fractures, fractures that extend to hip or knee joint capsule, lack of enough medical data, less than 12 months of follow up, and patients yet to reach skeletal maturity.
A total of 65 patients (67 femur fractures) were treated with intramedullary nails using a trochanteric fossa entrance (TFE) and 21 patients (23 femur fractures) were treated with nails using a greater trochanteric entrance (GTE). No statistically significant differences were evident between groups in terms of union time, blood loss, need for implant removal, implant failure, or revision operation. However, the duration of postoperative hospitalization was significantly shorter in the GTE nail group and the need for open reduction of the fracture was less common in these patients. Although there were no significant differences between groups in terms of complications and union among isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures, malreduction and iatrogenic fractures were more common with the use of GTE nails for treatment of supra-isthmal fractures.
Use of intramedullary nails via both GTE and TFE were safe and efficient for the treatment of isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures. However, varus malalignments associated with iatrogenic fractures were more common with trochanteric entrance nails. Together, our results show that the use of nails via TFE may represent a safer option for surgical treatment of supra-isthmal fractures.
我们研究了使用两种不同髓内钉设计(分别采用大转子或转子间窝入路)治疗股骨干骨折的临床和影像学结果。
回顾性分析接受转子间入路髓内钉或转子间窝入路髓内钉治疗股骨干骨折患者的病历。纳入标准为:有包括影像学图像和随访数据在内的必要病历资料、至少12个月的随访、骨骼成熟(≥16岁)且无骨质疏松(≤60岁)。排除标准为:病理性骨折、脆性骨折、骨折延伸至髋关节或膝关节囊、缺乏足够的医学数据、随访不足12个月以及未达到骨骼成熟的患者。
共有65例患者(67处股骨骨折)采用转子间窝入路(TFE)髓内钉治疗,21例患者(23处股骨骨折)采用大转子入路(GTE)髓内钉治疗。两组在骨折愈合时间、失血量、取出内固定物的需求、内固定物失败或翻修手术方面无统计学显著差异。然而,GTE髓内钉组术后住院时间明显更短,且这些患者中骨折切开复位的需求较少见。虽然两组在峡部和峡部下骨折的并发症和愈合方面无显著差异,但使用GTE髓内钉治疗峡部以上骨折时,复位不良和医源性骨折更为常见。
采用GTE和TFE入路的髓内钉治疗峡部和峡部下骨折安全有效。然而,转子入路髓内钉相关的内翻畸形和医源性骨折更为常见。总体而言,我们的结果表明,TFE入路髓内钉可能是峡部以上骨折手术治疗的更安全选择。