Intertrochanteric fractures are common, accounting for nearly 30% of all fracture related admissions. Some have suggested that these fractures should be treated in community hospitals so as not to tax the resources of Level One trauma centers. Since many factors predictive of fixation failure are related to technical aspects of the surgery, the purpose of this study was to compare radiographic parameters after fixation comparing trauma fellowship trained surgeons to non-fellowship trained community surgeons to see if these fractures can be treated successfully in either setting. Using our hospital system's trauma database, we identified 100 consecutive patients treated with cephalomedullary nails by traumatologists, and 100 consecutive patients treated by community surgeons. Quality of reduction, neck shaft angle (NSA), tip-to apex distance (TAD) were compared. The mean TAD for the trauma group was 10mm compared to 21mm for the community group (p<0.001). The mean postoperative NSA for the trauma group was 133 degrees compared to 127 degrees for the community group (p<0.001). The mean difference in the NSA of the fractured side compared to the normal hip was 2.5 degrees of valgus in the trauma group compared to 5 degrees of varus for the community group (p<0.001). There were 93 good reductions in the trauma group compared to 19 in the community group (p<0.001). There were no poor reductions in the trauma group and 49 poor reductions in the community group (p<0.001). Fellowship trained traumatologists achieved significantly more accurate reductions and implant placement during cephalomedullary nailing of intertrochanteric hip fractures.
Most hip fractures treated with modern internal
fixation techniques will heal. However, failures occasionally occur and
require revision procedures. Salvage strategies employed during
revision are based on whether the fixation failure occurs in the
femoral neck, or in the intertrochanteric region. Patient age and
remaining bone stock also influence decision making. For fractures
in young patients, efforts are generally focused on preserving the
native femoral head via osteotomies and repeat internal fixation.
For failures in older patients, some kind of hip replacement is
usually selected. Disuse osteopenia, deformity, bone loss, and stress-risers
from previous internal fixation devices all pose technical challenges
to successful reconstruction. Attention to detail is important in
order to minimise complications. In the majority of cases, good
outcomes have been reported for the various salvage strategies. Cite this article:
Pelvic discontinuity represents a rare but challenging
problem for orthopaedic surgeons. It is most commonly encountered
during revision total hip replacement, but can also result from
an iatrogentic acetabular fracture during hip replacement. The general
principles in management of pelvic discontinuity include restoration
of the continuity between the ilium and the ischium, typically with
some form of plating. Bone grafting is frequently required to restore
pelvic bone stock. The acetabular component is then impacted, typically
using an uncemented, trabecular metal component. Fixation with multiple
supplemental screws is performed. For larger defects, a so-called
‘cup–cage’ reconstruction, or a custom triflange implant may be
required. Pre-operative CT scanning can greatly assist in planning
and evaluating the remaining bone stock available for bony ingrowth.
Generally, good results have been reported for constructs that restore
stability to the pelvis and allow some form of biologic ingrowth. Cite this article:
Options for the treatment of subcapital femoral
neck fractures basically fall into two categories: internal fixation
or arthroplasty (either hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty).
Historically, the treatment option has been driven by a diagnosis-related approach
(non-displaced neck fractures versus displaced neck fractures).
More recently, the traditional paradigm has changed. Instead of
a diagnosis-related approach, it has become more of a patient-related
approach. Treatment options take in to consideration the patient’s age,
functional demands, and individual risk profile. A simple algorithm
can be helpful in terms of directing the treatment. Non-displaced
fractures, regardless of age of the patient, should be treated with
closed reduction and internal fixation. For displaced femoral neck fractures,
the treatment differs depending on the age of the patient. The younger
patient should be treated with urgent ORIF with the goal of an anatomic
reduction. For displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly,
cognitive function should be determined. For those who are cognitively
functioning, total hip arthroplasty appears to be the best option.
In the cognitively dysfunctional, a bipolar hemiarthroplasty or
a total hip arthroplasty with use of larger heads (32 mm or 36 mm)
and/or constrained sockets are a viable option.
Osteolysis remains a common reason for revision
after total hip arthroplasty (THA). For osteolysis associated with loose
cups, revision is indicated. For osteolysis around a well-fixed
cup, the decision is more controversial. The data available data
support retention of the cupwith lesional treatment, working through
screw holes and access channels for debridement and grafting. The
choice of graft material to fill defects, if any, remains controversial. Several
studies demonstrate good survivorship with cup retention strategies.
Complete revision allows more complete debridement of the lesion
and better graft fill, and allows implantation of a modern cup,
typically with a full line of liners and bearing surfaces available.
Additionally, revision allows fine tuning of the orientation of
the cup, which may be advantageous for optimising hip stability.
The author prefers to retain a well-fixed cup if it meets the following
criteria: it is well-fixed to intra-operative testing, it is well-positioned,
it is of sufficient size to allow insertion of a new liner with
a reasonable head size, new liners are available, and the hip is
stable to intra-operative trialing after liner insertion.
Many tumors metastasise to bone, therefore, pathologic
fracture and impending pathologic fractures are common reasons for
orthopedic consultation. Having effective treatment strategies is
important to avoid complications, and relieve pain and preserve
function. Thorough pre-operative evaluation is recommended for medical
optimization and to ensure that the lesion is in fact a metastasis
and not a primary bone malignancy. For impending fractures, various scoring
systems have been proposed to determine the risk of fracture, and
therefore the need for prophylactic stabilisation. Lower score lesions
can often be treated with radiation, while more problematic lesions
may require internal fixation. Intramedullary fixation is generally
preferred due to favorable biomechanics. Arthroplasty may be required
for lesions with massive bony destruction where internal fixation
attempts are likely to fail. Radiation may also be useful postoperatively
to minimise construct failure due to tumor progression.