header advert
Results 1 - 1 of 1
Results per page:
Applied filters
Content I can access

Trauma

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 95-B, Issue SUPP_16 | Pages 69 - 69
1 Apr 2013
Shoda E Ouchi K Maruyama S Okada Y Kitada S Haneda M Sasaki Y
Full Access

Fracture classification of femoral trochanteric fracture is usually based on plain X-ray. However, complications such as delayed union, non-union, and cut out are seen in stable fracture on X-ray. In this study, fracture was classified by 3D-CT and relationship to X-ray classification was investigated.

48 femoral trochanteric fractures (15 males, 33 female, average age: 82.6) treated with PFNA-II were investigated.

Fracture was classified to 2part, 3part(5 subgroups), and 4part with combination of 4 fragments in CT; Head (H), Greater trochanter (G), Lesser trochanter (L), and Shaft (S). 5 subgroups of 3 part fracture were (1) H+G (S: small fragment) + L-S, (2) H + G (B:big fragment) + L-S, (3) H + G-L + S, (4) H + G (W:whole) + S, and (5) H + L + G-S. Numbers of each group were as follows; 2 part: 11, 3 part (1) : 7, 3 part (2) : 12, 3 part (3) : 10, 3 part (4) : 2, 3 part (5) : 3, 4 part : 3. 3 part (3), (4), (5) and 4 part are considered as unstable, however, 6 cases in these groups were classified in A1–1 or A1–2 stable fracture in AO classification. 10 fractures in Evans and 5 fractures in Jensen classification classified as stable were unstable in CT evaluation.

It is sometimes very difficult to classify the femoral trochanteric fracture by plain X-ray. Classification with 3D-CT is very useful to distinguish which fracture is stable or unstable.