Journal List > J Korean Fract Soc > v.31(2) > 1038129

Lee, Jeong, Kim, and Kim: Factors Affecting Posterior Angulation in Retrograde Intramedullary Nailing for Distal Femoral Fractures

Abstract

Purpose

To analyze the factors that cause a posterior angulatory deformity in the retrograde intramedullary nailing of distal femoral fractures.

Materials and Methods

Fifty-five patients with distal femur fractures who were treated with retrograde intramedullary nailing were enrolled in this study. They were followed-up for at least one year postoperatively. The posterior angulatory deformity was evaluated according to the fracture location, pattern, and insertion point and the insertion point was compared with the ideal point derived from the radiographs of 100 normal adults. The correlation between the posterior angulation and the entry point of the nail was analyzed.

Results

The posterior angulation was similar in terms of the fracture location; a meaningful difference was noted among the fracture patterns (p=0.047). The posterior angulation was significantly greater when the entry point was located more posteriorly, accepting a malreduced state (p=0.012).

Conclusion

Posterior angulation was smaller in the transverse fracture and the posterior location of the entry point from the apex of the Blumensaat's line increased the posterior angulation.

References

1. Karpos PA, McFerran MA, Johnson KD. Intramedullary nailing of acute femoral shaft fractures using manual traction without a fracture table. J Orthop Trauma. 9:57–62. 1995.
crossref
2. Kempf I, Grosse A, Beck G. Closed locked intramedullary nailing. Its application to comminuted fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 67:709–720. 1985.
crossref
3. Majkowski RS, Baker AS. Interlocking nails for femoral fractures: an initial experience. Injury. 22:93–96. 1991.
crossref
4. Wolinsky PR, McCarty E, Shyr Y, Johnson K. Reamed intramedullary nailing of the femur: 551 cases. J Trauma. 46:392–399. 1999.
5. Moed BR, Watson JT. Retrograde intramedullary nailing, without reaming, of fractures of the femoral shaft in multiply injured patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 77:1520–1527. 1995.
crossref
6. Moed BR, Watson JT, Cramer KE, Karges DE, Teefey JS. Un-reamed retrograde intramedullary nailing of fractures of the femoral shaft. J Orthop Trauma. 12:334–342. 1998.
crossref
7. Patterson BM, Routt ML Jr, Benirschke SK, Hansen ST Jr. Retrograde nailing of femoral shaft fractures. J Trauma. 38:38–43. 1995.
crossref
8. Sanders R, Koval KJ, DiPasquale T, Helfet DL, Frankle M. Retrograde reamed femoral nailing. J Orthop Trauma. 7:293–302. 1993.
crossref
9. Swiontkowski MF, Hansen ST Jr, Kellam J. Ipsilateral fractures of the femoral neck and shaft. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 66:206–268. 1984.
10. Ricci WM, Bellabarba C, Lewis R, et al. Angular malalignment after intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 15:90–95. 2001.
crossref
11. Acharya KN, Rao MR. Retrograde nailing for distal third femoral shaft fractures: a prospective study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 14:253–258. 2006.
crossref
12. Ostrum RF. Treatment of floating knee injuries through a single percutaneous approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 375:43–50. 2000.
crossref
13. Whittle AP. Fractures of the lower extremity. Canale ST, Beaty JH, editors. Campbell's operative orthopaedics. 11th ed.Philadelphia, Mosby Elsevier: 3085–3236;2008.
crossref
14. O'Brien PJ, Meek RN, Blachut PA, Broekhuyse H. Fractures of the distal femur. Bucholz RW, Heckman JD, Court-Brown CM, editors. Rockwood and Green's fractures in adults. 6th ed.Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: 1915–1967;2006.
15. Gozna ER. Biomechanics of long bone injuries. Gonza ER, Harrington IJ, Evans DC, editors. Biomechanics of musculoskeletal injury. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins;p. 1–29. 1982.
16. Krupp RJ, Malkani AL, Goodin RA, Voor MJ. Optimal entry point for retrograde femoral nailing. J Orthop Trauma. 17:100–105. 2003.
crossref
17. Carmack DB, Moed BR, Kingston C, Zmurko M, Watson JT, Richardson M. Identification of the optimal intercondylar starting point for retrograde femoral nailing: an anatomic study. J Trauma. 55:692–695. 2003.
crossref

Fig. 1.
Method of measuring the distance between the intramedullary center line and apex of the Blumensaat's line: (A) practical measurement, (B) schematic drawing.
jkfs-31-50f1.tif
Fig. 2.
Entry point of the retrograde intramedullary nail, which could affect the posterior angulation of the fracture: (A) The 8.16 mm anterior location of entry point with no posterior angulation of fracture site was observed. (B) The 7.81 mm posterior location of entry point with posterior angulation.
jkfs-31-50f2.tif
Fig. 3.
Method for measuring the posterior angulation of the fracture site: That could be measured from the angle between an intramedullary center line of the distal fragment and that of the proximal fragment. This patient had malunion of 12.6o posterior angulation.
jkfs-31-50f3.tif
Fig. 4.
Fracture level as a factor that could affect the posterior angulation of the fracture: (A) supracondylar level (AO 33 type), (B) distal one third level of femoral shaft (AO 32 type).
jkfs-31-50f4.tif
Fig. 5.
Facture pattern as a factor that could affect the posterior angulation of a fracture: (A) transverse type, (B) oblique type, (C) spiral type, and (D) comminuted type.
jkfs-31-50f5.tif
Table 1.
Posterior Angulation of a Distal Femoral Fracture according to the Fracture Level and Pattern
Factor Posterior angulation (o) p-value
Fracture level   0.708*
  Shaft (AO/ASIF 32 type) 2.6±4.1  
  Supracondylar or intercondylar fracture (AO/ASIF 33 type) 3.1±3.9  
Fracture pattern   0.047
  Transverse 1.1±2.1  
  Oblique 4.0±2.9  
  Spiral 4.7±4.9  
  Comminuted 5.5±6.8  
Entry point   0.005*
  Anterior 1.3±0.7  
  Non-anterior    
   Center 1.5±0.7  
   Posterior 9.5±1.4  

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation. *p-value by independent samples t-test.

p-value by ANOVA.

Table 2.
Shortest Distance between Apex of the Blumensaat's Line and Intramedullary Center Line of One Hundred Normal Koreans
Variable Age (yr) The shortest distance (mm)
Male (50 cases) 60 (31–87) 7.4 (3–13)
Female (50 cases) 58 (33–82) 7.0 (4–11)
Total (100 cases) 59 (31–87) 7.2 (3–13)
TOOLS
Similar articles