Journal List > J Korean Fract Soc > v.30(4) > 1129887

Park, Shon, and Lim: Comparison of the Treatment Results between Reduction with Percutaneous Wiring and Reduction without Percutaneous Wiring in Reverse Oblique Trochanteric Fractures (AO Classification 31-A3.3)

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to investigate the utility of percutaneous wiring in the reduction of reverse oblique trochanteric fractures (AO classification 31-A3.3) by analyzing the treatment results with or without the use of percutaneous wiring.

Materials and Methods

Thirty-five cases from January 2008 to August 2014 that could be followed-up for at least one year were selected among patients with unstable trochanteric fractures who underwent either internal fixation or open reduction. Seventeen patients underwent surgery with percutaneous wire fixation but another 18 patients underwent surgery without it. All patients received a closed reduction and internal fixation with an intramedullary nail. The factors evaluated were as follows: the length of operation, loss of blood, length of in-hospital stay, lower limb function scale, return to preinjury daily life, change in femur neck shaft angle, postoperative gap of the fracture site, time taken for bone attachment, quality of post-operative reduction, and complications.

Results

No significant difference in the mean operative time, loss of blood, length of in hospital stay, lower limb function scale, return to pre-injury daily life, change in femur neck shaft angle, postoperative gap of the fracture site, and quality of postoperative reduction was observed between the two groups. A significant difference was noted in the time taken for bone attachment (p=0.032). Bone attachment took 13.3 weeks (9–17 weeks) on average when fixed with percutaneous wiring and no patient was found to have any complications. When treated without percutaneous wiring, however, bone attachment took 17.8 weeks (12.5–28.0 weeks) on average and three cases resulted in delayed union.

Conclusion

Percutaneous wiring is a recommended treatment option for patients with an unstable trochanteric fracture.

Figures and Tables

Fig. 1

After anatomical reduction was achieved, a nail was inserted and then final reduction was made with percutaneous cerclage wiring.

jkfs-30-192-g001
Fig. 2

Wire passer system (Synthes) used in percutaneous cerclage wiring.

jkfs-30-192-g002
Fig. 3

(A) A 48-year-old man with wiring: initial, immediately after surgery, 2-month follow-up (F/U) and 3-month F/U on a simple radiograph. (B) A 59-yearold man without wiring: initial, immediately after surgery, 3-month F/U and 6-month F/U on a simple radiograph. PostOP: postoperative.

jkfs-30-192-g003
Table 1

Demographic Data

jkfs-30-192-i001
Variable With wiring
(17 cases)
Without wiring
(18 cases)
Device PFNA II: 10 PFNA: 10
ITST: 3 ITST: 3
CM nail: 4 Sirus nail: 5
Sex (male/female) 14/3 15/3
Mean age (yr) 54 (18–72) 65 (38–81)
BMI (kg/m2) 22.5 (19.3–26.5) 21.7 (18.5–24.2)
Mean F/U (mo) 18.2 (13–42) 45.7 (24–81)

Values are presented as number only or median (range). PFNA: proximal femoral nail antirotation, ITST: intertrochanteric/subtrochanteric fixation system, CM: cephalomedulary, BMI: body mass index, F/U: follow-up.

Table 2

Clinical Results

jkfs-30-192-i002
Variable With wiring Without wiring
Mean operative time (min) 100 (50–145) 99.5 (40–150)
Hospital day (d) 24.6 (8–59) 20.3 (10–46)
Blood loss (ml) 186 (50–300) 198 (40–400)
Change in lower limb function scale 4.5 (3–9) 6.2 (4–9)
Return to daily life (mo) 7 (4–12) 9 (7–15)

Values are presented as median (range).

Table 3

Radiological Results

jkfs-30-192-i003
Variable With wiring Without wiring p-value
Bone attachment time (wk) 13.3 (9–17) 17.8 (12.5–28.0) 0.032
Change in neck-shaft angle (°) 1.4±2.3 1.2±3.1 >0.05
Postoperative gap (mm) 0.2 (0–0.5) 1.7 (0.8–2.5) >0.05

Values are presented as median (range) or mean±standard deviation.

Table 4

Complications

jkfs-30-192-i004
Complication With wiring Without wiring Total
Delayed union 0 3 3
Nonunion 0 0 0
Shortening (>2 cm) 0 0 0
Infection 0 0 0

Values are presented as number only.

Notes

Financial support None.

Conflict of interests None.

References

1. Nikolaou VS, Papathanasopoulos A, Giannoudis PV. What's new in the management of proximal femoral fractures? Injury. 2008; 39:1309–1318.
crossref
2. Perren SM. Evolution of the internal fixation of long bone fractures. The scientific basis of biological internal fixation: choosing a new balance between stability and biology. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002; 84:1093–1110.
3. de Vries JS, Kloen P, Borens O, Marti RK, Helfet DL. Treatment of subtrochanteric nonunions. Injury. 2006; 37:203–211.
crossref
4. Loizou CL, McNamara I, Ahmed K, Pryor GA, Parker MJ. Classification of subtrochanteric femoral fractures. Injury. 2010; 41:739–745.
crossref
5. Kennedy MT, Mitra A, Hierlihy TG, Harty JA, Reidy D, Dolan M. Subtrochanteric hip fractures treated with cerclage cables and long cephalomedullary nails: a review of 17 consecutive cases over 2 years. Injury. 2011; 42:1317–1321.
crossref
6. Apivatthakakul T, Phaliphot J, Leuvitoonvechkit S. Percutaneous cerclage wiring, does it disrupt femoral blood supply? A cadaveric injection study. Injury. 2013; 44:168–174.
crossref
7. Binkley JM, Stratford PW, Lott SA, Riddle DL. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network. Phys Ther. 1999; 79:371–383.
8. Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM, Keggi JM. The value of the tip-apex distance in predicting failure of fixation of peritrochanteric fractures of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995; 77:1058–1064.
crossref
9. Asher MA, Tippett JW, Rockwood CA, Zilber S. Compression fixation of subtrochanteric fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976; (117):202–208.
crossref
10. Kinast C, Bolhofner BR, Mast JW, Ganz R. Subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. Results of treatment with the 95 degrees condylar blade-plate. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989; (238):122–130.
11. Siebenrock KA, Müller U, Ganz R. Indirect reduction with a condylar blade plate for osteosynthesis of subtrochanteric femoral fractures. Injury. 1998; 29:Suppl 3. C7–C15.
crossref
12. Trafton PG. Subtrochanteric-intertrochanteric femoral fractures. Orthop Clin North Am. 1987; 18:59–71.
crossref
13. Apivatthakakul T, Phornphutkul C. Percutaneous cerclage wiring for reduction of periprosthetic and difficult femoral fractures. A technical note. Injury. 2012; 43:966–971.
crossref
14. Perren SM, Fernandez Dell'Oca A, Lenz M, Windolf M. Cerclage, evolution and potential of a Cinderella technology. An overview with reference to periprosthetic fractures. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2011; 78:190–199.
15. Apivatthakakul T, Phornphutkul C, Bunmaprasert T, Sananpanich K, Fernandez Dell'Oca A. Percutaneous cerclage wiring and minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO): a percutaneous reduction technique in the treatment of Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012; 132:813–822.
crossref
16. Afsari A, Liporace F, Lindvall E, Infante A Jr, Sagi HC, Haidukewych GJ. Clamp-assisted reduction of high subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91:1913–1918.
crossref
17. Kim JW, Park KC, Oh JK, Oh CW, Yoon YC, Chang HW. Percutaneous cerclage wiring followed by intramedullary nailing for subtrochanteric femoral fractures: a technical note with clinical results. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014; 134:1227–1235.
crossref
18. Müller T, Topp T, Kühne CA, Gebhart G, Ruchholtz S, Zettl R. The benefit of wire cerclage stabilisation of the medial hinge in intramedullary nailing for the treatment of subtrochanteric femoral fractures: a biomechanical study. Int Orthop. 2011; 35:1237–1243.
crossref
TOOLS
ORCID iDs

Jae Woo Park
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4346-8848

Oog Jin Shon
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9123-5694

Seung Wan Lim
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5624-7403

Similar articles