SpringerLink
Log in

Is distal locking with IMHN necessary in every pertrochanteric fracture?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two groups of patients were treated for pertrochanteric fractures (AO/ASIF 31A1+A2) with an intramedullary hip nail. In the first group of 44 patients distal dynamic locking was used, and in the second group of 74 patients the nail was not distally locked. Comparison of the two groups of patients did not show any difference in terms of the period of fracture healing, radiological and functional results or frequency of complications. In the group with a distally locked nail the surgery took 40.4 minutes, while in the group without distal locking only 34.4 minutes. In total, we recorded only seven complications, none of which were caused by absence of distal locking of the nail. This study has shown that distal locking of IMHN is unnecessary in most pertrochanteric fractures (AO/ASIF 31A1+2). The only exceptions are comminution of the lateral wall of the greater trochanter, secondary diaphyseal fracture line, large posteromedial fragment extended distally below the level of the lesser trochanter and broad intramedullary canal.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bartoníček J, Douša P, Krbec M (1998) Short gamma nail for internal fixation of proximal femur fractures. Acta Chir Orthop Traum Cechoslov 65:74–83

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bellabarba C, Herscovici D, Ricci WM (2000) Percutaneous treatment of peritrochanteric fractures using the gamma nail. Clin Orthop Rel Res 375:30–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bridle SH, Patel AD, Calvert PT (1991) Fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. A randomized prospective comparison of the gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 73-B:330–334

    Google Scholar 

  4. Broos, PLO, van Haaften, KIK, Stappaerts et al (1989) Hip fractures in the elderly. Mortality, functional results and social readaptation. Int Surg 74:191–194

  5. Calvert PT (1992) The gamma nail—a significant advance or a passing fashion? J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 74-B:329–331

    Google Scholar 

  6. De Lucas P, Seral B, Beano Á et al (2005) Fractures of the proximal femur. The gamma nail versus plate. Osteo Trauma Care 13:18–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Douša P, Bartoníček J, Jehlička D et al (2002) Proximal femoral nail (PFN Synthes) for internal fixation of trochanteric fractures. Acta Chir Orthop Traum Cechoslov 69:22–30

    Google Scholar 

  8. Halder SC (1992) The gamma nail for peritrochanteric fractures. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 74-B:340–344

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hardy DC, Descamps PY, Krallis P et al (1998) Use of intramedullary hip-screw compared with a compression hip-screw with a plate for intertrochanteric femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 80-A:618–630

    Google Scholar 

  10. Heinz T, Vécsei V (1994) Komplikationen und Fehler bei der Anwendung des Gammanagels. Chirurg 65:943–952

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Herrera A, Domingo J, Martinez A (2008) Results of osteosynthesis with the ITST nail in fractures of the trochanteric region of the femur. Int Orthop 32:767–772

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hesse B, Gächter A (2004) Complications following the treatment of trochanteric fractures with the Gamma nail. Arch Ortho Trauma Surg 124:692–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hohendorff B, Meyer P, Menezes D et al (2005) Behandlungsergebnisse und Komplikationen nach PFN-Osteosynthese. Unfallchirurg 108:938–953

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gadegone WM, Salphale YS (2007) Proximal femoral nail—an analysis of 100 cases of proximal femoral fractures with an average follow up of 1 year. Int Orthop 31:403–408

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Klanke J, Franke J, Westermann K (2005) The titanium gamma nail as routine treatment of pertrochanteric femoral fractures. Osteo Trauma Care 13:26–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Košťál R, Douša P, Bartoníček J (2003) PFH (Proximální femorální hřeb) - Another possibility for internal fixation of trochanteric fractures. Rozhl Chir 82:28–31

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lacroix H, Arwert H, Snijders CJ et al (1995) Prevention of fracture at the distal locking site of the gamma nail. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 77-B:274–276

    Google Scholar 

  18. Leung KS, So WS, Shen WY et al (1992) Gamma nails and dynamic hip screw for pertrochanteric fractures. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 74-B:345–351

    Google Scholar 

  19. Radford JP, Needorf M, Webb JK (1993) A prospective randomised comparison of the dynamic hip screw and the gamma locking nail. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 75-B:789–793

    Google Scholar 

  20. Rosenblum SH, Zuckerman JD, Kummer FJ et al (1992) A mechanical evaluation of the gamma nail. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 74-B:352–357

    Google Scholar 

  21. Saarenpää I, Heikkinen T, Ristiniemi J et al (2009) Functional comparison of the dynamic hip screw and the gamma locking nail in trochanteric hip fractures: a matched-pair study of 268 patients. Int Orthop 33:255–260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schipper IB, Steyerberg EW, Castelein RM et al (2004) Treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures. Randomised comparison of the gamma nail and the proximal femoral nail. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 86-B:86–94

    Google Scholar 

  23. Shen WY (2005) Complications with the gamma nail and long gamma nail, and their prevention. Osteo Trauma Care 13:34–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Utrilla AL, Reig JS, Muňoz FM et al (2005) Trochanteric gamma nail and compression hip screw for trochanteric fractures. J Orthop Trauma 19:229–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Valverde JA, Alonso MG, Porro JG et al (1998) Use of the gamma nail in the treatment of fractures of the proximal femur. Clin Orthop Rel Res 350:56–61

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedic Department of 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Šrobárova 50, 100 34, Prague 10, Czech Republic

    Jiří Skála-Rosenbaum, Jan Bartoníček & Radek Bartoška

Authors
  1. Jiří Skála-Rosenbaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Bartoníček
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Radek Bartoška
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Bartoníček.

Additional information

This article is original, it is not under consideration by another journal, and it has not been previously published.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Skála-Rosenbaum, J., Bartoníček, J. & Bartoška, R. Is distal locking with IMHN necessary in every pertrochanteric fracture?. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 34, 1041–1047 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-009-0874-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-009-0874-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation