Objective To analyse the factors of complications aftertreatment of intertrochanteric fractures with Gamma nail. Methods From January 1998 to May 2004, 50 patients were treated with Gamma nail, including 18 males and 32 females and ageing from 47 to 82 years. The locations were the left side in 16 cases andthe right in 34 cases. According to Evans classification, there were 4 cases oftype Ⅰ, 2 cases of type Ⅱ, 23 cases of type Ⅲ, 10 cases of type Ⅳ and 11 cases of type Ⅴ. Results Fifty patients were followed up 429 months. Accordingto the Harris criterion for evaluation, the results were excellent and good in 35 cases, showing sthenic weight loading walking and normal range of motion of the hip joint. The postoperative complications appeared in 15 cases: 5 cases of coxa vara or coxa valga, 3 cases of rotation deformity of lower limb, 2 cases oftension screwprotrusions and lower shorten, 1 case of failure of internal fixation, 1 case of femoral fracture, 2 cases of coxalgia and 1 case of pain in knee joint and stiff knee joint. Conclusion The reason of complications was various, mainly lies in insufficient comprehension and analysis of the types of fractures, unfamiliarity with the characteristics and usage of the instruments and neglected rehabi litation instruction, inappropriate functional training and too early weight loading after operation.
Objective To summarize the new research progress in distal interlocking screws of cephalomedullary nails for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. Methods Relevant domestic and foreign literature was extensively reviewed to summarize the static/dynamic types of distal interlocking screw holes, biomechanical studies, clinical studies and application principles, effects on toggling in the cavity, and related complications of distal interlocking screws.ResultsThe mode of the distal interlocking screw holes can be divided into static and dynamic. Distal interlocking screws play the role of anti-rotation, maintaining femur length, resisting compression stress, increasing torque stiffness, resisting varus stress, etc. The number of the screws directly affects the toggling of the main nail in the cavity. At present, regardless of whether long or short nails are used, distal interlocking screws are routinely inserted in clinical practice. However, using distal interlocking screws can significantly increase the duration of anesthesia and operation, increase fluoroscopy exposure time, surgical blood loss, and incision length. There is a trend of trying not to use distal interlocking screws in recent years. No significant difference is found in some studies between the effectiveness of dynamic and static interlocking for AO/Orthopaedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) 31-A1/2 fractures. At present, the selection of the number and mode of distal interlocking screws is still controversial. When inserting distal interlocking screws, orthopedists should endeavor to minimize the occurrence of complications concerning miss shot, vascular injuries, local stress stimulation, and peri-implant fractures. Conclusion Distal interlocking screws are mainly used to prevent rotation. For stable fractures with intact lateral walls, long cephalomedullary nails can be used without distal interlocking screws. For any type of intertrochanteric fractures, distal interlocking screws are required when using short cephalomedullary nails for fixation. Different interlocking modes, the number of interlocking screws, and the application prospects of absorbable interlocking screws may be future research directions.
ObjectiveTo explore the clinical effect of applying the concept of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) to the perioperative management of elderly patients with intertrochanteric fractures.MethodsThe clinical data of 64 elderly patients with intertrochanteric fractures admitted to West China Hospital of Sichuan University from January 2016 to December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 32 patients admitted from January to December in 2017 were in ERAS group, and 32 patients admitted from January to December 2016 were in control group. The control group used conventional orthopedic perioperative management measures, and the ERAS group combined the ERAS concept on the basis of conventional treatment measures for perioperative management. The incidence of perioperative complications, Visual Analogue Scale score, modified Barthel Index score, inpatient satisfaction and length of hospital stay were compared between the two groups.ResultsThere was no significant difference in age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, combined disease, modified Barthel Index or Visual Analogue Scale score at admission, or time from injury to surgery between the two groups (P>0.05). The total incidence of perioperative complications (12.5% vs. 37.5%) and length of hospital stay [(8.09±2.33) vs. (10.41±3.63) d] in the ERAS group were lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). The Visual Analogue Scale scores of the two groups of patients before operation, on the first day and the third day after operation were lower than those at admission (P<0.05). The comparison between the two groups at each time point showed that the Visual Analogue Scale scores of patients in the ERAS group were lower than those in the control group before operation, on the first day and the third day after operation, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). The modified Barthel Index scores of the two groups of patients on the third day, and 1 month, 3 months and 6 months after operation showed a rising trend with time. The modified Barthel Index scores of the ERAS group were better than those of the control group on the third day, and 1 month and 3 months after operation (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups 6 months after operation (P>0.05). The hospitalization satisfaction score of the ERAS group was 95.56±5.12, which was higher than that of the control group (92.84±5.62), and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).ConclusionsThe implementation of ERAS perioperative management for elderly patients with intertrochanteric fractures may reduce the incidence of perioperative complications, relieve patient pain, promote the short-term recovery of activities of daily living of patients, improve the inpatient satisfaction and shorten the length of hospital stay.
Objective To compare the inter-observer agreement, consistency with the gold standard, and accuracy of the 2007 and 2018 versions of the AO/OTA classification in femoral intertrochanteric fractures, and to identify easily confused fracture types. Methods X-ray images of patients with femoral intertrochanteric fractures at Daping Hospital, Army Medical University between 2017 and 2021 were retrospectively collected. Three senior orthopedic trauma surgeons independently classified the fractures using both the 2007 and 2018 AO/OTA versions. A committee of five experts established the gold standard. Kappa coefficients were used to evaluate inter-observer agreement and consistency with the gold standard, while a confusion matrix was used to analyze accuracy and confusion points. Results A total of 236 patients were included. Regarding inter-observer agreement, the 2007 version was superior to the 2018 version at the subtype level [Kappa value: (0.473-0.739) vs. (0.322-0.658)], with no significant difference at the subgroup level [Kappa value: (0.234-0.453) vs. (0.204-0.442)]. Regarding consistency with the gold standard, the 2018 version was slightly better than the 2007 version [Kappa value: (0.332-0.629) vs. (0.269-0.581)] at the subgroup level. In terms of accuracy, the 2007 version showed higher accuracy at the subtype level (72.50% vs. 70.11%), whereas the 2018 version demonstrated better accuracy at the subgroup level (59.04% vs. 51.99%). The most easily confused subtypes in both versions were A1 and A2. At the subgroup level, A2.2 was the most easily confused type in both versions. Conclusions There is inconsistency in the application of both classification versions by surgeons. The 2007 version demonstrates slightly better inter-observer agreement at the subtype level, while the 2018 version shows better accuracy at the subgroup level. The A2.2 subgroup is a major point of confusion, suggesting that clinical attention should be focused on this type or that auxiliary tools may be needed to improve accuracy.