The Femoral Neck-Shaft Offset: A Key Element in the Reconstruction of Intertrochanteric Fracture.

IF 2.1 2区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Kun Wang, Ming Hao, Junsong Wang, Gang Zhang, Shaobo Nie, Peifu Tang, Licheng Zhang
{"title":"The Femoral Neck-Shaft Offset: A Key Element in the Reconstruction of Intertrochanteric Fracture.","authors":"Kun Wang, Ming Hao, Junsong Wang, Gang Zhang, Shaobo Nie, Peifu Tang, Licheng Zhang","doi":"10.1111/os.70163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Anteromedial cortex reduction and accurate placement of the cephalomedullary nail is the key point to confront implant failure of intertrochanteric fractures. Existing intramedullary nails cannot compensate for femoral neck-shaft offset (FNSO), potentially undermining surgical outcome. This study aimed to investigate the effect of FNSO on anteromedial cortex reduction and accurate placement of the cephalomedullary nail for intertrochanteric fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included patients with intertrochanteric fractures treated with short intramedullary nails at our institution from January 2014 to December 2016, who were divided into acceptable and unacceptable groups according to the anteromedial cortex reduction quality. We measured the femoral neck-shaft offset (FNSO) and offset angle (FNSOA) on the uninjured femur CT. Postoperative CT of the fractured femur was used to measure the offset between the femoral neck axis and the cephalic nail axis (FNCO) and the corresponding angular offset (FNCOA). Cephalic nail insertion alignment was classified into three types (oblique-forward/rear, coincident, and oblique-backward/front) based on FNCO/FNCOA values. Group differences were analyzed, and logistic regression identified predictors of poor reduction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-seven patients (mean age 78.10 ± 13.47 years; 74% women) were included. The median FNSO and FNSOA of unaffected femurs were 4.31 (IQR 1.50) mm and 4.85° (IQR 2.01). 42.1% of cases had acceptable anteromedial reduction, while 57.9% were unacceptable. Cephalic nail insertion types were: 43.9% oblique-backward/front, 28.1% coincident, and 28.1% oblique-forward/rear. The unacceptable reduction group had significantly different FNCO (-2.32 vs. 2.14 mm) and FNCOA (-3.5° vs. 0°) compared to the acceptable group (both p < 0.001), despite similar fracture types and devices. Cephalic nail insertion type differed between groups (p < 0.001): oblique-backward/front and coincident insertions were more common in poor reductions. Logistic regression showed that oblique-backward/front insertion (OR = 51.33, 95% CI 7.60-346.85) and coincident insertion (OR = 9.00, 95% CI 1.52-53.40) were strong independent predictors of unacceptable reduction (both p < 0.001). Among insertion types, oblique-forward/rear had the lowest median FNCO (3.59 mm) and FNCOA (0.69°) and only 12.5% unacceptable reductions, versus coincident (0 mm, 0°, 56.3%) and oblique-backward/front (-3.06 mm, -5.84°, 88.0%) (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>It is difficult for existing intramedullary nails to achieve both the reduction of the anterior medial cortex and the accurate implantation of intramedullary nails due to the presence of FNSO. Optimizing intramedullary nailing design and surgical strategy according to FNSO may improve the treatment outcome of intertrochanteric fractures.</p>","PeriodicalId":19566,"journal":{"name":"Orthopaedic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopaedic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/os.70163","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Anteromedial cortex reduction and accurate placement of the cephalomedullary nail is the key point to confront implant failure of intertrochanteric fractures. Existing intramedullary nails cannot compensate for femoral neck-shaft offset (FNSO), potentially undermining surgical outcome. This study aimed to investigate the effect of FNSO on anteromedial cortex reduction and accurate placement of the cephalomedullary nail for intertrochanteric fractures.

Methods: This retrospective study included patients with intertrochanteric fractures treated with short intramedullary nails at our institution from January 2014 to December 2016, who were divided into acceptable and unacceptable groups according to the anteromedial cortex reduction quality. We measured the femoral neck-shaft offset (FNSO) and offset angle (FNSOA) on the uninjured femur CT. Postoperative CT of the fractured femur was used to measure the offset between the femoral neck axis and the cephalic nail axis (FNCO) and the corresponding angular offset (FNCOA). Cephalic nail insertion alignment was classified into three types (oblique-forward/rear, coincident, and oblique-backward/front) based on FNCO/FNCOA values. Group differences were analyzed, and logistic regression identified predictors of poor reduction.

Results: Fifty-seven patients (mean age 78.10 ± 13.47 years; 74% women) were included. The median FNSO and FNSOA of unaffected femurs were 4.31 (IQR 1.50) mm and 4.85° (IQR 2.01). 42.1% of cases had acceptable anteromedial reduction, while 57.9% were unacceptable. Cephalic nail insertion types were: 43.9% oblique-backward/front, 28.1% coincident, and 28.1% oblique-forward/rear. The unacceptable reduction group had significantly different FNCO (-2.32 vs. 2.14 mm) and FNCOA (-3.5° vs. 0°) compared to the acceptable group (both p < 0.001), despite similar fracture types and devices. Cephalic nail insertion type differed between groups (p < 0.001): oblique-backward/front and coincident insertions were more common in poor reductions. Logistic regression showed that oblique-backward/front insertion (OR = 51.33, 95% CI 7.60-346.85) and coincident insertion (OR = 9.00, 95% CI 1.52-53.40) were strong independent predictors of unacceptable reduction (both p < 0.001). Among insertion types, oblique-forward/rear had the lowest median FNCO (3.59 mm) and FNCOA (0.69°) and only 12.5% unacceptable reductions, versus coincident (0 mm, 0°, 56.3%) and oblique-backward/front (-3.06 mm, -5.84°, 88.0%) (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: It is difficult for existing intramedullary nails to achieve both the reduction of the anterior medial cortex and the accurate implantation of intramedullary nails due to the presence of FNSO. Optimizing intramedullary nailing design and surgical strategy according to FNSO may improve the treatment outcome of intertrochanteric fractures.

股骨颈轴偏移:股骨粗隆间骨折重建的关键因素。
背景:前内侧皮质复位和头髓内钉的准确定位是治疗转子间骨折内固定失败的关键。现有的髓内钉不能补偿股骨颈轴偏移(FNSO),可能会影响手术效果。本研究旨在探讨FNSO对股骨粗隆间骨折前内侧皮质复位和头髓钉准确定位的影响。方法:回顾性研究2014年1月至2016年12月在我院行短髓内钉治疗的股骨粗隆间骨折患者,根据前内侧皮质复位质量分为可接受组和不可接受组。我们在未损伤的股骨CT上测量股骨颈轴偏移(FNSO)和偏移角(FNSOA)。术后用骨折股骨CT测量股骨颈轴与头甲轴的偏移量(FNCO)及相应的角偏移量(FNCOA)。根据FNCO/FNCOA值将头侧钉插入对准分为斜前/后、重合、斜后/前三种类型。对组间差异进行分析,并通过逻辑回归确定不良减量的预测因素。结果:纳入57例患者,平均年龄78.10±13.47岁,女性占74%。未受影响股骨的中位FNSO和FNSOA分别为4.31 (IQR 1.50) mm和4.85°(IQR 2.01)。42.1%的病例前内侧复位可接受,57.9%的病例前内侧复位不可接受。头位钉入类型:43.9%斜后/前,28.1%重合,28.1%斜前/后。不可接受复位组的FNCO (-2.32 vs. 2.14 mm)和FNCOA(-3.5°vs. 0°)与可接受复位组相比有显著差异(均p)。结论:由于FNSO的存在,现有髓内钉难以同时实现前内侧皮质的复位和髓内钉的准确植入。根据FNSO优化髓内钉设计和手术策略,可提高股骨粗隆间骨折的治疗效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Orthopaedic Surgery
Orthopaedic Surgery ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
374
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Orthopaedic Surgery (OS) is the official journal of the Chinese Orthopaedic Association, focusing on all aspects of orthopaedic technique and surgery. The journal publishes peer-reviewed articles in the following categories: Original Articles, Clinical Articles, Review Articles, Guidelines, Editorials, Commentaries, Surgical Techniques, Case Reports and Meeting Reports.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信