Use of the gamma3™ nail in a teaching hospital for trochanteric fractures: mechanical complications, functional outcomes,and quality of life

BMC Research Notes

Thorben Müller¹  Steffen Ruchholtz¹  Daphne Eschbach¹  Johannes Struewer¹  Christopher Bliemel¹  Benjamin Buecking¹ 

[1] Department of Trauma, Hand, and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Giessen and Marburg GmbH, Location Marburg, Baldingerstrasse, Marburg, 35043, Germany

关键词: Mortality;    Complications;    Quality of life;    Outcome;    Gamma3 nail;    Surgical education;    Trochanteric fractures;   

Others  :  1165136
DOI  :  10.1186/1756-0500-5-651

 received in 2012-02-07, accepted in 2012-11-21,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Trochanteric fractures are common fractures in the elderly. Due to characteristic demographic changes, the incidence of these injuries is rapidly increasing. Treatment of these fractures is associated with high rates of complications. In addition, the long-term results remain poor, with high morbidity, declines in function, and high mortality. Therefore, in this study, complication rates and patients’ outcomes were evaluated after fixation of geriatric trochanteric fractures using the Gamma3™ nail.

Methods

Patients aged 60 years old or older, with pertrochanteric and subtrochanteric femoral fractures, were included. Patients with polytrauma or pathological fractures were excluded. Age, sex, and fracture type were collected on admission. In addition, data were recorded concerning the surgeon (resident vs. consultant), time of operation, and local or systemic perioperative complications. Complications were also collected at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups after trauma. Barthel Index, IADL, and EQ-5D measurements were evaluated retrospectively on admission, as well as at discharge and during the follow-up.

Results

Ninety patients were prospectively included between April 2009 and September 2010. The patients’ average age was 81 years old, and their average ASA score was 3. The incision/suture time was 53 min(95% CI 46–60 min). Hospital mortality was 4%, and overall mortality was 22% at the 12-month follow-up. Eight local complications occurred (4 haematomas, 1 deep infection, 1 cutting out, 1 irritation of the iliotibial tract, 1 periosteosynthetic fracture). The incidence of relevant systemic complications was 6%. Forty-two percent of the patients were operated on by residents in training, without significant differences in duration of surgery, complication rate, or mortality rate. The Barthel Index (82 to 71, p < .001), IADL (4.5 to 4.3, p = .0195) and EQ-5-D (0.75 to 0.66, p = .068) values did not reach pre-fracture levels during the follow-up period of 12 months.

Conclusion

The results showed a relatively low complication rate using the Gamma3™ nail, even if the nailing was performed by residents in training. The high mortality, declines in function, and low quality of life could probably be attributed to pre-existing conditions, such as physical status.

In summary, the Gamma3™ nail seems to be a useful implant for the nailing of trochanteric fractures, although further studies are necessary comparing different currently available devices.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Buecking et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Marks R: Hip fracture epidemiological trends, outcomes, and risk factors, 1970–2009. Int J Gen Med 2010, 3:1-17.
• [2]Lohmann R, Frerichmann U, Stöckle U, Riegel T, Raschke MJ: [Proximal femoral fractures in the elderly. Analysis of data from health insurance providers on more than 23 million insured persons--part 1]. Unfallchirurg 2007, 110(7):603-609.
• [3]Kanis JA, Odén A, McCloskey EV, Johansson H, Wahl DA, Cooper C, IOF Working Group on Epidemiology and Quality of LifeGoEaQo (2012): A systematic review of hip fracture incidence and probability of fracture worldwide. Osteoporos Int 2012, 23(9):2239-2259.
• [4]Icks A, Haastert B, Wildner M, Becker C, Meyer G: Trend of hip fracture incidence in Germany 1995–2004: a population-based study. Osteoporos Int 2008, 19(8):1139-1145.
• [5]White SM, Griffiths R: Projected incidence of proximal femoral fracture in England: A report from the NHS Hip Fracture Anaesthesia Network (HIPFAN). Injury 2011, 42(11):1230-1233.
• [6]Federal Statistical Office: 11th coordinated projection of population. 2010. [modification 1-W1]
• [7]DeStatis Statistisches Bundesamt: Hospital statistics. Wiesbaden; 2011. Available at: http://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/Gesundheit/Krankenhaeuser/DiagnosedatenKrankenhaus2120621097004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile/ webcite. Accessed May 20, 2012
• [8]Ender HG: Treatment of per- and subtrochanteric fractures in old age using elastic nails. Hefte Unfallheilkd 1975, (121):67-71.
• [9]Parker MJ, Handoll HH: Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010, (9):CD000093.
• [10]Aune AK, Ekeland A, Odegaard B, Grogaard B, Alho A: Gamma nail vs compression screw for trochanteric femoral fractures. 15 reoperations in a prospective, randomized study of 378 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 1994, 65(2):127-130.
• [11]Bridle SH, Patel AD, Bircher M, Calvert PT: Fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. A randomised prospective comparison of the gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1991, 73(2):330-334.
• [12]Radford PJ, Needoff M, Webb JK: A prospective randomised comparison of the dynamic hip screw and the gamma locking nail. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1993, 75(5):789-793.
• [13]Williams WW, Parker BC: Complications associated with the use of the gamma nail. Injury 1992, 23(5):291-292.
• [14]Ahrengart L, Tornkvist H, Fornander P, Thorngren KG, Pasanen L, Wahlstrom P, Honkonen S, Lindgren U: A randomized study of the compression hip screw and Gamma nail in 426 fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002, 401:209-222.
• [15]Utrilla AL, Reig JS, Munoz FM, Tufanisco CB: Trochanteric gamma nail and compression hip screw for trochanteric fractures: a randomized, prospective, comparative study in 210 elderly patients with a new design of the gamma nail. J Orthop Trauma 2005, 19(4):229-233.
• [16]Sadowski C, Lubbeke A, Saudan M, Riand N, Stern R, Hoffmeyer P: Treatment of reverse oblique and transverse intertrochanteric fractures with use of an intramedullary nail or a 95 degrees screw-plate: a prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002, 84-A(3):372-381.
• [17]Friedl W, Clausen J: [Experimental examination for optimized stabilisation of trochanteric femur fractures, intra- or extramedullary implant localisation and influence of femur neck component profile on cut-out risk]. Chirurg 2001, 72(11):1344-1352.
• [18]Parker MJ, Handoll HH: Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008, Jul l6(3):CD000093.
• [19]ICD-10 Version:2010: International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision. Available at: http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/ webcite. Accessed May 2, 2012
• [20]Mueller ME, et al.: The comprehensive classification of fractures of long bones. New York: Springer; 1990.
• [21]Muller M, Seitz A, Besch L, Hilgert RE, Seekamp A: [Proximal femur fractures: results and complications after osteosynthesis with PFN and TGN]. Unfallchirurg 2008, 111(2):71-77.
• [22]Lawton MP, Brody EM: Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist 1969, 9(3):179-186.
• [23]Greiner W, Claes C, Busschbach JJ, von der Schulenburg JM: Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population. Eur J Health Econ 2005, 6(2):124-130.
• [24]Miedel R, Ponzer S, Törnkvist H, Söderqvist A, Tidermark J: The standard Gamma nail or the Medoff sliding plate for unstable trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. A randomised, controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005, 87(1):68-75.
• [25]Johnell O: The socioeconomic burden of fractures: today and in the 21st century. Am J Med 1997, 103(2A):20S-25S. discussion 25S-26S
• [26]Herrera A, Domingo LJ, Calvo A, Martinez A, Cuenca J: A comparative study of trochanteric fractures treated with the Gamma nail or the proximal femoral nail. Int Orthop 2002, 26(6):365-369.
• [27]Adams CI, Robinson CM, Court-Brown CM, McQueen MM: Prospective randomized controlled trial of an intramedullary nail versus dynamic screw and plate for intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Orthop Trauma 2001, 15(6):394-400.
• [28]Goulidakis V, Theocharakis S, Chronopoulos V, Drakoulakis E, Pastroudis A: Good outcome of 172 pertrochanteric hip fractures treated with Gamma-Nail in our department. Injury 2009, 40(Supplement 2):S8-S9.
• [29]Yaozeng X, Dechun G, Huilin Y, Guangming Z, Xianbin W: Comparative study of trochanteric fracture treated with the proximal femoral nail anti-rotation and the third generation of gamma nail. Injury 2010, 41(12):1234-1238.
• [30]Bonnaire F, Lein T, Bula P: [Trochanteric femoral fractures: anatomy, biomechanics and choice of implants]. Unfallchirurg 2011, 114(6):491-500.
• [31]McGuire KJ, Chacko AT, Bernstein J: Cost-effectiveness of Teaching Hospitals for the Operative Management of Hip Fractures. Orthopedics 2011, 34(10):e598-e601.
• [32]Westacott D, Bould M: Outcome in 36 elderly patients treated with the Gamma3 Long Nail for unstable proximal femoral fracture. Acta Orthop Belg 2011, 77(1):68-72.
• [33]Audigé L, Hanson B, Swiontkowski MF: Implant-related complications in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures: meta-analysis of dynamic screw-plate versus dynamic screw-intramedullary nail devices. Int Orthop 2003, 27(4):197-203.
• [34]Stern R, Lübbeke A, Suva D, Miozzari H, Hoffmeyer P: Prospective randomised study comparing screw versus helical blade in the treatment of low-energy trochanteric fractures. Int Orthop 2011, 35(12):1855-1861.
• [35]McGraw JK, Lippert JA, Minkus KD, Rami PM, Davis TM, Budzik RF: Prospective evaluation of pain relief in 100 patients undergoing percutaneous vertebroplasty: results and follow-up. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2002, 13(9 Pt 1):883-886.
• [36]Schipper IB, Steyerberg EW, Castelein RM, van der Heijden FH, den Hoed PT, Kerver AJ, van Vugt AB: Treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures. Randomised comparison of the gamma nail and the proximal femoral nail. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004, 86(1):86-94.
• [37]Bhandari M, Schemitsch E, Jönsson A, Zlowodzki M, Haidukewych GJ: Gamma nails revisited: gamma nails versus compression hip screws in the management of intertrochanteric fractures of the hip: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma 2009, 23(6):460-464.
• [38]Saudan M, Lübbeke A, Sadowski C, Riand N, Stern R, Hoffmeyer P: Pertrochanteric fractures: is there an advantage to an intramedullary nail?: a randomized, prospective study of 206 patients comparing the dynamic hip screw and proximal femoral nail. J Orthop Trauma 2002, 16(6):386-393.
• [39]Barton TM, Gleeson R, Topliss C, Greenwood R, Harries WJ, Chesser TJ: A comparison of the long gamma nail with the sliding hip screw for the treatment of AO/OTA 31-A2 fractures of the proximal part of the femur: a prospective randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010, 92(4):792-798.
• [40]Liu M, Yang Z, Pei F, Huang F, Chen S, Xiang Z: A meta-analysis of the Gamma nail and dynamic hip screw in treating peritrochanteric fractures. Int Orthop 2010, 34(3):323-328.
• [41]Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes: Sterblichkeit, Todesursachen und regionale Unterschiede [Gesundheitsberichterstattung - Themenhefte, April 2011. 2011. Available at: http://www.gbe-bund.de webcite Accessed May 20, 2012
• [42]Becker C, Gebhard F, Fleischer S, Hack A, Kinzl L, Nikolaus T, Muche R: [Prediction of mortality, mobility and admission to long-term care after hip fractures]. Unfallchirurg 2003, 106(1):32-38.
• [43]Bertram M, Norman R, Kemp L, Vos T: Review of the long-term disability associated with hip fractures. Inj Prev 2011, 17(6):365-370.
• [44]Koval KJ, Skovron ML, Aharonoff GB, Zuckerman JD: Predictors of functional recovery after hip fracture in the elderly. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998, 348:22-28.
• [45]Magaziner J, Fredman L, Hawkes W, Hebel JR, Zimmerman S, Orwig DL, Wehren L: Changes in functional status attributable to hip fracture: a comparison of hip fracture patients to community-dwelling aged. Am J Epidemiol 2003, 157(11):1023-1031.
• [46]Kammerlander C, Gosch M, Kammerlander-Knauer U, Luger TJ, Blauth M, Roth T: Long-term functional outcome in geriatric hip fracture patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2011, 131(10):1435-1444.
• [47]Ekström W, Miedel R, Ponzer S, Hedström M, Samnegård E, Tidermark J: Quality of life after a stable trochanteric fracture–a prospective cohort study on 148 patients. J Orthop Trauma 2009, 23(1):39-44.
• [48]Tidermark J, Zethraeus N, Svensson O, Törnkvist H, Ponzer S: Quality of life related to fracture displacement among elderly patients with femoral neck fractures treated with internal fixation. J Orthop Trauma 2002, 16(1):34-38.