Intramedullary Nailing of Intertrochanteric Femoral Fractures in a Level I Trauma Center in Finland: What Complications Can be Expected?
Journal
Clinical orthopaedics and related research
ISSN: 1528-1132
Titre abrégé: Clin Orthop Relat Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0075674
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Aug 2023
15 Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
17
02
2023
accepted:
29
06
2023
medline:
15
8
2023
pubmed:
15
8
2023
entrez:
15
8
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Intertrochanteric hip fractures are one of the most common fractures in older people, and the number is estimated to increase. These fractures are often treated with intramedullary nailing; however, various complications have been reported. It is important to identify the potential complications and investigate whether the choice of implant and patient-related factors are associated with the risk of complications to develop better strategies for preventing them. (1) In the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures with intramedullary nailing, what are the risks of major complications and 30-day mortality? (2) Which implant types are associated with greater odds of major complications? (3) Which patient-related factors are associated with increased odds of major complications? In this retrospective, comparative study, we reviewed the health records of 2397 patients with a femoral fracture treated at one Level I trauma center between January 2014 and November 2020. Of those, we considered patients who were treated with intramedullary nailing for an intertrochanteric fracture after sustaining a low-energy injury as potentially eligible. Based on this criterion, 53% (1279) were eligible; a further 47% (1118) were excluded because the fixation method was other than intramedullary nailing, the fracture pattern was other than intertrochanteric fracture, or the fracture was caused by a high-energy injury mechanism. Another 4% (97) were excluded because they had incomplete datasets because of follow-up less than 12 months, leaving 49% (1182) for analysis. During the study period, intramedullary nails were generally used to treat nearly all intertrochanteric fractures at our hospital. The risk of complications was then assessed by chart review. Acute myocardial ischemia, cutout, nail breakage, pulmonary embolism, sepsis, stroke, and wound infection were defined as major complications. Cutout, nail breakage, and wound infection were defined as major complications leading to reoperation. To examine the association of implant type and major complications, a logistic regression analysis was performed. Additionally, the risks of major complications leading to reoperation were compared between implants. Finally, a univariable logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the association between patient-related factors and major complications. The overall proportion of patients experiencing complications was 16% (183 of 1182), and the crude percentage of 30-day mortality was 9% (107 of 1182) based on the hospital`s medical records. After controlling for patient-related factors such as disease, age, and smoking, we found that nail type was not associated with odds of major complications leading to reoperation (Gamma3: OR 0.86 [95% CI 0.44 to 1.67]; p = 0.67; Trochanteric Fixation Nail: OR 0.61 [95% CI 0.2 to 1.53]; p = 0.33; Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation: OR 0.55 [95% CI 0.16 to 1.49]; p = 0.29) compared with the Trochanteric Fixation Nail Advanced. Anticoagulation (OR 1.70 [95% CI 1.11 to 2.59]; p = 0.01), congestive heart failure (OR 1.91 [95% CI 1.13 to 3.11]; p = 0.01), and hypertension (OR 1.67 [95% CI 1.08 to 2.63]; p = 0.02) were associated with a major complication. Liver disease (OR 5.19 [95% CI 0.78 to 20.8]; p = 0.04) was associated with a major complication leading to reoperation. This study provides a better understanding of the occurrence of surgical and medical complications after intramedullary nailing of intertrochanteric fractures. The new-generation nail types are comparable options based on the risk of reoperation. Anticoagulation, congestive heart failure, and hypertension were associated with major complications, highlighting the need for careful management and monitoring of these comorbidities during intramedullary nailing procedures.Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Intertrochanteric hip fractures are one of the most common fractures in older people, and the number is estimated to increase. These fractures are often treated with intramedullary nailing; however, various complications have been reported. It is important to identify the potential complications and investigate whether the choice of implant and patient-related factors are associated with the risk of complications to develop better strategies for preventing them.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES
OBJECTIVE
(1) In the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures with intramedullary nailing, what are the risks of major complications and 30-day mortality? (2) Which implant types are associated with greater odds of major complications? (3) Which patient-related factors are associated with increased odds of major complications?
METHODS
METHODS
In this retrospective, comparative study, we reviewed the health records of 2397 patients with a femoral fracture treated at one Level I trauma center between January 2014 and November 2020. Of those, we considered patients who were treated with intramedullary nailing for an intertrochanteric fracture after sustaining a low-energy injury as potentially eligible. Based on this criterion, 53% (1279) were eligible; a further 47% (1118) were excluded because the fixation method was other than intramedullary nailing, the fracture pattern was other than intertrochanteric fracture, or the fracture was caused by a high-energy injury mechanism. Another 4% (97) were excluded because they had incomplete datasets because of follow-up less than 12 months, leaving 49% (1182) for analysis. During the study period, intramedullary nails were generally used to treat nearly all intertrochanteric fractures at our hospital. The risk of complications was then assessed by chart review. Acute myocardial ischemia, cutout, nail breakage, pulmonary embolism, sepsis, stroke, and wound infection were defined as major complications. Cutout, nail breakage, and wound infection were defined as major complications leading to reoperation. To examine the association of implant type and major complications, a logistic regression analysis was performed. Additionally, the risks of major complications leading to reoperation were compared between implants. Finally, a univariable logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the association between patient-related factors and major complications.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The overall proportion of patients experiencing complications was 16% (183 of 1182), and the crude percentage of 30-day mortality was 9% (107 of 1182) based on the hospital`s medical records. After controlling for patient-related factors such as disease, age, and smoking, we found that nail type was not associated with odds of major complications leading to reoperation (Gamma3: OR 0.86 [95% CI 0.44 to 1.67]; p = 0.67; Trochanteric Fixation Nail: OR 0.61 [95% CI 0.2 to 1.53]; p = 0.33; Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation: OR 0.55 [95% CI 0.16 to 1.49]; p = 0.29) compared with the Trochanteric Fixation Nail Advanced. Anticoagulation (OR 1.70 [95% CI 1.11 to 2.59]; p = 0.01), congestive heart failure (OR 1.91 [95% CI 1.13 to 3.11]; p = 0.01), and hypertension (OR 1.67 [95% CI 1.08 to 2.63]; p = 0.02) were associated with a major complication. Liver disease (OR 5.19 [95% CI 0.78 to 20.8]; p = 0.04) was associated with a major complication leading to reoperation.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides a better understanding of the occurrence of surgical and medical complications after intramedullary nailing of intertrochanteric fractures. The new-generation nail types are comparable options based on the risk of reoperation. Anticoagulation, congestive heart failure, and hypertension were associated with major complications, highlighting the need for careful management and monitoring of these comorbidities during intramedullary nailing procedures.Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37582281
doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002792
pii: 00003086-990000000-01299
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Each author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.
Références
Belmont PJ, Garcia EJ, Romano D, Bader JO, Nelson KJ, Schoenfeld AJ. Risk factors for complications and in-hospital mortality following hip fractures: a study using the National Trauma Data Bank. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014;134:597-604.
Bojan AJ, Beimel C, Speitling A, Taglang G, Ekholm C, Jönsson A. 3066 consecutive gamma nails. 12 years experience at a single centre. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11:133-133.
Bojan AJ, Beimel C, Taglang G, Collin D, Ekholm C, Jönsson A. Critical factors in cut-out complication after gamma nail treatment of proximal femoral fractures. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:1.
Chapman T, Zmistowski B, Krieg J, Stake S, Jones CM, Levicoff E. Helical blade versus screw fixation in the treatment of hip fractures with cephalomedullary devices: incidence of failure and atypical “medial cutout.” J Orthop Trauma. 2018;32:397-402.
Chiang CH, Liu CJ, Chen PJ, et al. Hip fracture and risk of acute myocardial infarction: a nationwide study. J Bone Miner Res. 2013;28:404-411
Cooper C, Cole ZA, Holroyd CR, et al. Secular trends in the incidence of hip and other osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:1277-1288.
Cordero J, Maldonado A, Iborra S. Surgical delay as a risk factor for wound infection after a hip fracture. Injury. 2016;47:S56-S60.
Cruz-Sánchez M, Torres-Claramunt R, Alier-Fabregó A, Martínez-Díaz S. Salvage for nail breakage in femoral intramedullary nailing. Injury. 2015;46:729-733.
Flikweert ER, Wendt KW, Diercks RL, et al. Complications after hip fracture surgery: are they preventable? Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2018;44:573-580.
Golinvaux NS, Bohl DD, Basques BA, Baumgaertner MR, Grauer JN. Diabetes confers little to no increased risk of postoperative complications after hip fracture surgery in geriatric patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:1043-1051.
Goodnough LH, Chang RN, Fasig BH, et al. Risk of revision after hip fracture fixation using DePuy Synthes Trochanteric Fixation Nail or Trochanteric Fixation Nail Advanced: a cohort study of 7,979 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2022;104:1090-1097.
Halonen LM, Stenroos A, Vasara H, Huotari K, Kosola J. Infections after intramedullary fixation of trochanteric fractures are uncommon and implant removal is not usually needed. Injury. 2021;52:1511-1516.
Hoerlyck C, Ong T, Gregersen M, et al. Do anticoagulants affect outcomes of hip fracture surgery? A cross-sectional analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2020;140:171-176.
Kim RG, An VVG, Petchell JF. Hip fracture surgery performed out-of-hours-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Injury. 2021;52:664-670.
Lamb JN, Panteli M, Pneumaticos SG, Giannoudis PV. Epidemiology of pertrochanteric fractures: our institutional experience. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2014;40:225-232.
Lambers A, Rieger B, Kop A, D'Alessandro P, Yates P. Implant fracture analysis of the TFNA Proximal Femoral Nail. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101:804-811.
Lawrence JE, Fountain DM, Cundall-Curry DJ, Carrothers AD. Do patients taking warfarin experience delays to theatre, longer hospital stay, and poorer survival after hip fracture? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475:273-279.
Lawrence VA, Hilsenbeck SG, Noveck H, Poses RM, Carson JL. Medical complications and outcomes after hip fracture repair. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:2053-2057.
Lv H, Yin P, Long A, et al. Clinical characteristics and risk factors of postoperative pneumonia after hip fracture surgery: a prospective cohort study. Osteoporos Int. 2016;27:3001-3009.
Mavrogenis AF, Panagopoulos GN, Megaloikonomos PD, et al. Complications after hip nailing for fractures. Orthopedics. 2016;39:e108-e116.
Mingo-Robinet J, Torres-Torres M, Martínez-Cervell C, et al. Comparative study of the second and third generation of gamma nail for trochanteric fractures: review of 218 cases. J Orthop Trauma. 2015;29:85-90.
Murena L, Moretti A, Meo F, et al. Predictors of cut-out after cephalomedullary nail fixation of pertrochanteric fractures: a retrospective study of 813 patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2018;138:351-359.
Norris R, Bhattacharjee D, Parker MJ. Occurrence of secondary fracture around intramedullary nails used for trochanteric hip fractures: a systematic review of 13,568 patients. Injury. 2012;43:706-711.
Panula J, Pihlajamäki H, Mattila VM, et al. Mortality and cause of death in hip fracture patients aged 65 or older: a population-based study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:105.
Pascarella R, Fantasia R, Maresca A, et al. How evolution of the nailing system improves results and reduces orthopedic complications: more than 2000 cases of trochanteric fractures treated with the Gamma Nail System. Musculoskelet Surg. 2016;100:1-8.
Pedersen AB, Ehrenstein V, Szépligeti SK, Sørensen HT. Hip fracture, comorbidity, and the risk of myocardial infarction and stroke: a Danish nationwide cohort study, 1995-2015. J Bone Miner Res. 2017;32:2339-2346.
Remily EA, Mohamed NS, Wilkie WA, et al. Hip fracture trends in America between 2009 and 2016. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2020;11:1-10.
Roche JJ, Wenn RT, Sahota O, Moran CG. Effect of comorbidities and postoperative complications on mortality after hip fracture in elderly people: prospective observational cohort study. BMJ. 2005;331:1374-1376.
Rubio-Avila J, Madden K, Simunovic N, Bhandari M. Tip to apex distance in femoral intertrochanteric fractures: a systematic review. J Orthop Sci. 2013;18:592-598.
Schmitz PP, Hannink G, Reijmer J, Somford MP, Van Susante JLC. Increased failure rates after the introduction of the TFNA proximal femoral nail for trochanteric fractures: implant related or learning curve effect? Acta Orthop. 2022;93:234-240.
Sheehan KJ, Sobolev B, Guy P, et al. Feasibility of administrative data for studying complications after hip fracture surgery. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e015368.
Stern LC, Gorczyca JT, Kates S, Ketz J, Soles G, Humphrey CA. Radiographic review of helical blade versus lag screw fixation for cephalomedullary nailing of low-energy peritrochanteric femur fractures: there is a difference in cutout. J Orthop Trauma. 2017;31:305-310.
Turgut A, Kalenderer Ö, Karapınar L, Kumbaracı M, Akkan HA, Ağuş H. Which factor is most important for occurrence of cutout complications in patients treated with proximal femoral nail antirotation? Retrospective analysis of 298 patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016;136:623-630.
Vaquero J, Munoz J, Prat S, et al. Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation versus Gamma3 nail for intramedullary nailing of unstable trochanteric fractures. A randomised comparative study. Injury. 2012;43(suppl):S47-S54.
Wallace A, Amis J, Cafri G, Coplan P, Wood J. Comparative safety of the TFN-ADVANCED Proximal Femoral Nailing system: findings from a U.S. health-care database. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021;103:1637-1645.