Download PDF
Z Orthop Unfall 2024; 162(02): 135-142
DOI: 10.1055/a-1904-8551
Übersicht

Osteosynthese bei proximalen Femurfrakturen – Wie entscheidend sind Reposition und die Wahl des Implantats?

Article in several languages: deutsch | English
Martin Gathen 
1   Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn Chirurgisches Zentrum, Bonn, Deutschland (Ringgold ID: RIN385634)
,
Christof Burger
1   Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn Chirurgisches Zentrum, Bonn, Deutschland (Ringgold ID: RIN385634)
,
Adnan Kasapovic
1   Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn Chirurgisches Zentrum, Bonn, Deutschland (Ringgold ID: RIN385634)
,
Koroush Kabir
1   Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn Chirurgisches Zentrum, Bonn, Deutschland (Ringgold ID: RIN385634)
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Proximale Femurfrakturen sind häufige und gleichsam komplexe Verletzungen, die einer zeitnahen Versorgung bedürfen. Ziel der operativen Therapie ist stets die rasche Wiederherstellung einer schmerzfreien und belastungsstabilen Extremität. Betroffen sind meist ältere, multimorbide Patienten mit einer hohen postoperativen Komplikations- und Mortalitätsrate. Bei gleichzeitig steigender Inzidenz besteht eine hohe medizinische und volkswirtschaftliche Relevanz der Thematik. In dieser Arbeit soll anhand der aktuellen Literatur die Reposition und Implantatwahl bei der Osteosynthese von proximalen Femurfrakturen in Abhängigkeit von der Frakturmorphologie untersucht werden. Zur Standardversorgung gehören neben der Schraubenosteosynthese (SO) die Versorgung mit einer Dynamischen Hüftschraube (DHS) und die intramedulläre Nagelosteosynthese (IN). Des Weiteren wird der Einfluss der Implantatpositionierung, Frakturreposition und additiver Maßnahmen wie einer Zementaugmentation auf das Ergebnis bewertet und diskutiert. Vorrangig für die Vermeidung von Komplikationen sind eine sorgsame Frakturreposition und die regelhafte Implantatpositionierung.

Schlüsselwörter

proximale Femurfrakturen - hüftgelenksnahe Frakturen - intramedulläre Osteosynthese - dynamische Hüftschraube - pertrochantäre Fraktur


Publication History

Received: 16 December 2021

Accepted after revision: 13 July 2022

Article published online:
27 September 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Ireland AW, Kelly PJ, Cumming RG. Total hospital stay for hip fracture: measuring the variations due to pre-fracture residence, rehabilitation, complications and comorbidities. BMC Health Serv Res 2015; 15: 17
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Haughom BD, Basques BA, Hellman MD. et al. Do Mortality and Complication Rates Differ Between Periprosthetic and Native Hip Fractures?. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 1914-1918
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Sathiyakumar V, Greenberg SE, Molina CS. et al. Hip fractures are risky business: an analysis of the NSQIP data. Injury 2015; 46: 703-708
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Ehlinger M, Favreau H, Eichler D. et al. Early mechanical complications following fixation of proximal femur fractures: From prevention to treatment. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2020; 106(1S): S79-S87
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Korbmacher JG, Schulze-Raestrup U, Nowak H. et al. Osteosynthetic treatment of proximal femoral fractures: the timing of treatment is delayed in cases of pre-existing anticoagulation : Results of the data of external inpatient quality assurance from North Rhine-Westphalia with 24,786 cases within the framework of using secondary data. Unfallchirurg 2021; 124: 642-650
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Socci AR, Casemyr NE, Leslie MP. et al. Implant options for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures of the hip: rationale, evidence, and recommendations. Bone Joint J 2017; 99-B: 128-133
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss. Beschluss des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über eine Richtlinie zur Versorgung der hüftgelenknahen Femurfraktur. 2019–11–22_2020–03–27_2020–04–16_2020–11–20_QSFFx-RL_Erstfassung_konsolidiert_BAnz.pdf.
    PubMed
  • 8 Weißbuch Alterstraumatologie. Liener UC, Becker C, Rapp K. Accessed January 03, 2022 at: https://alt.dgu-online.de/fileadmin/published_content/5.Qualitaet_und_Sicherheit/Alterstraumatologie/Weissbuch_Alterstraumatologie_2018.pdf
    PubMed
  • 9 Anglen JO, Weinstein JN. American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Research Committee. Nail or plate fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: changing pattern of practice. A review of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Database. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90: 700-707
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Florschutz AV, Langford JR, Haidukewych GJ. et al. Femoral Neck Fractures: Current Management. J Orthop Trauma 2015; 29: 121-129
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Zlowodzki MP, Wijdicks CA, Armitage BM. et al. Value of washers in internal fixation of femoral neck fractures with cancellous screws: a biomechanical evaluation. J Orthop Trauma 2015; 29: e69-e72
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Filipov O, Gueorguiev B. Unique stability of femoral neck fractures treated with the novel biplane double-supported screw fixation method: a biomechanical cadaver study. Injury 2015; 46: 218-226
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Knobe M, Altgassen S, Maier K-J. et al. Screw-blade fixation systems in Pauwels three femoral neck fractures: a biomechanical evaluation. Int Orthop 2018; 42: 409-418
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Buckley RE, Moran CG, Apivatthakakul T. AO Principles of Fracture Management. 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Thieme; 2017
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 Li L, Zhao X, Yang X. et al. Dynamic hip screws versus cannulated screws for femoral neck fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 2020; 15: 352
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Shehata MSA, Aboelnas MM, Abdulkarim AN. et al. Sliding hip screws versus cancellous screws for femoral neck fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2019; 29: 1383-1393
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Stoffel K, Zderic I, Gras F. et al. Biomechanical Evaluation of the Femoral Neck System in Unstable Pauwels III Femoral Neck Fractures: A Comparison with the Dynamic Hip Screw and Cannulated Screws. J Orthop Trauma 2017; 31: 131-137
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Parker MJ. Sliding hip screw versus intramedullary nail for trochanteric hip fractures; a randomised trial of 1000 patients with presentation of results related to fracture stability. Injury 2017; 48: 2762-2767
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Santoni BG, Diaz MA, Stoops TK. et al. Biomechanical Investigation of an Integrated 2-Screw Cephalomedullary Nail Versus a Sliding Hip Screw in Unstable Intertrochanteric Fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2019; 33: 82-87
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Li A-B, Zhang W-J, Wang J. et al. Intramedullary and extramedullary fixations for the treatment of unstable femoral intertrochanteric fractures: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials. Int Orthop 2017; 41: 403-413
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Yu X, Wang H, Duan X. et al. Intramedullary versus extramedullary internal fixation for unstable intertrochanteric fracture, a meta-analysis. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2018; 52: 299-307
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Ma K-L, Wang X, Luan F-J. et al. Proximal femoral nails antirotation, Gamma nails, and dynamic hip screws for fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of femur: A meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2014; 100: 859-866
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Al-Munajjed AA, Hammer J, Mayr E. et al. Biomechanical characterisation of osteosyntheses for proximal femur fractures: helical blade versus screw. Stud Health Technol Inform 2008; 133: 1-10
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Windolf M, Braunstein V, Dutoit C. et al. Is a helical shaped implant a superior alternative to the Dynamic Hip Screw for unstable femoral neck fractures? A biomechanical investigation. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2009; 24: 59-64
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Lindvall E, Ghaffar S, Martirosian A. et al. Short Versus Long Intramedullary Nails in the Treatment of Pertrochanteric Hip Fractures: Incidence of Ipsilateral Fractures and Costs Associated With Each Implant. J Orthop Trauma 2016; 30: 119-124
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Zhang Y, Zhang S, Wang S. et al. Long and short intramedullary nails for fixation of intertrochanteric femur fractures (OTA 31-A1, A2 and A3): A systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2017; 103: 685-690
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Kane P, Vopat B, Heard W. et al. Is tip apex distance as important as we think? A biomechanical study examining optimal lag screw placement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472: 2492-2498
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Lee C-H, Su K-C, Chen K-H. et al. Impact of tip–apex distance and femoral head lag screw position on treatment outcomes of unstable intertrochanteric fractures using cephalomedullary nails. J Int Med Res 2018; 46: 2128-2140
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Joglekar SB, Lindvall EM, Martirosian A. Contemporary management of subtrochanteric fractures. Orthop Clin North Am 2015; 46: 21-35
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Kasha S, Yalamanchili RK. Management of subtrochanteric fractures by nail osteosynthesis: a review of tips and tricks. Int Orthop 2020; 44: 645-653
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Neuerburg C, Gosch M, Blauth M. et al. Augmentation techniques on the proximal femur. Unfallchirurg 2015; 118: 755-764
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Fensky F, Nüchtern JV, Kolb JP. et al. Cement augmentation of the proximal femoral nail antirotation for the treatment of osteoporotic pertrochanteric fractures--a biomechanical cadaver study. Injury 2013; 44: 802-807
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Sermon A, Boner V, Schwieger K. et al. Biomechanical evaluation of bone-cement augmented Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation blades in a polyurethane foam model with low density. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2012; 27: 71-76
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Schuetze K, Ehinger S, Eickhoff A. et al. Cement augmentation of the proximal femur nail antirotation: is it safe. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2020;
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Kammerlander C, Doshi H, Gebhard F. et al. Long-term results of the augmented PFNA: a prospective multicenter trial. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2014; 134: 343-349
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Kammerlander C, Hem ES, Klopfer T. et al. Cement augmentation of the Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) – A multicentre randomized controlled trial. Injury 2018; 49: 1436-1444
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Stramazzo L, Ratano S, Monachino F. et al. Cement augmentation for trochanteric fracture in elderly: A systematic review. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2021; 15: 65-70
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Keppler AM, Pfeufer D, Kau F. et al. Cement augmentation of the Proximal Femur Nail Antirotation (PFNA) is associated with enhanced weight-bearing in older adults. Injury 2021; 52: 3042-3046
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Falkensammer ML, Benninger E, Meier C. Reduction Techniques for Trochantericand Subtrochanteric Fractures of the Femur: a Practical Guide. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 2016; 83: 300-310
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Marmor M, Liddle K, Buckley J. et al. Effect of varus and valgus alignment on implant loading after proximal femur fracture fixation. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2016; 26: 379-383
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Wang Y, Ma J-X, Yin T. et al. Correlation Between Reduction Quality of Femoral Neck Fracture and Femoral Head Necrosis Based on Biomechanics. Orthop Surg 2019; 11: 318-324
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Ostrum RF, Marcantonio A, Marburger R. A critical analysis of the eccentric starting point for trochanteric intramedullary femoral nailing. J Orthop Trauma 2005; 19: 681-686
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM. et al. The value of the tip-apex distance in predicting failure of fixation of peritrochanteric fractures of the hip. : The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery 1995; 77: 1058-1064
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Mallya S, Kamath SU, Madegowda A. et al. Comparison of radiological and functional outcome of unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures treated using PFN and PFNA-2 in patients with osteoporosis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2019; 29: 1035-1042
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Kuzyk PRT, Zdero R, Shah S. et al. Femoral head lag screw position for cephalomedullary nails: a biomechanical analysis. J Orthop Trauma 2012; 26: 414-421
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Lakstein D, Bachar I, Debi R. et al. Radiographic templating of total hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures. Int Orthop 2017; 41: 831-836
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Jiménez-Delgado JJ, Paulano-Godino F, PulidoRam-Ramírez R. et al. Computer assisted preoperative planning of bone fracture reduction: Simulation techniques and new trends. Med Image Anal 2016; 30: 30-45
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Okada T, Iwasaki Y, Koyama T. et al. Computer-Assisted Preoperative Planning for Reduction of Proximal Femoral Fracture Using 3-D-CT Data. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2009; 56: 749-759
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 49 Krischak G, Beck A, Wachter N. et al. Relevance of primary reduction for the clinical outcome of femoral neck fractures treated with cancellous screws. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2003; 123: 404-409
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 50 Yoon RS, Donegan DJ, Liporace FA. Reducing subtrochanteric femur fractures: tips and tricks, do’s and don’ts. J Orthop Trauma 2015; 29 (04) S28-S33
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar