RESEARCH ARTICLE
Analysis of the Influence of Osteosynthesis Technique and Patient-specific Factors on the Outcome of Subtrochanteric Fracture Treatment
Christoph Schulze1, 2, *, Erwin Kollig3, Katharina Estel4, Claudia Hacke5, Andre Gutcke2, Dan Bieler3
Article Information
Identifiers and Pagination:
Year: 2020Volume: 14
First Page: 140
Last Page: 149
Publisher ID: TOORTHJ-14-140
DOI: 10.2174/1874325002014010140
Article History:
Received Date: 23/6/2020Revision Received Date: 04/9/2020
Acceptance Date: 11/9/2020
Electronic publication date: 25/11/2020
Collection year: 2020
open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Abstract
Objective:
The number of subtrochanteric femoral fractures will continue to grow on account of demographic developments. The treatment of choice is reduction and surgical stabilisation. Intramedullary (IO) and extramedullary (EO) techniques are available for this purpose. A final assessment has not been made of which technique is superior with regard to treatment outcome, complication rates, and revision rates. The objective of this retrospective study was to compare surgical procedures with regard to weight bearing, length of hospital stay, the occurrence of complications, and the necessity of surgical revisions.
Methods:
This retrospective study included 77 patients (74.9 ± 14.9 years; 42.9% male). Associations between surgical procedures and treatment outcomes, complications and revision rates were calculated by linear and logistic regression analysis. To investigate the effect of surgical procedure within patients with fracture type 2 B according to Russel-Taylor classification, a subgroup analysis was performed.
Results:
In case of fracture type 2 B, according to Russell-Taylor classification, EO took 80 minutes longer on average than the intramedullary technique (p = 0.001), although surgeon experience plays an important role. Common complications were more frequently associated with IO than with EO. Surgical revisions were required more often in the extramedullary group (OR 4.5; 95% CI: 0.87 – 23.19). Patients in the intramedullary group were discharged 3.4 days earlier from the hospital (p = 0.024). Older patients had a higher risk for the occurrence of complications, but BMI and the experience of the surgeon did not. Patients with intramedullary stabilisation frequently showed better postoperative weight-bearing stability.
Conclusion:
The intramedullary technique offers advantages to both patients and hospitals with regard to outcome, duration of surgery, and length of stay in the hospital. Although, extramedullary implants are less expensive, this advantage is clearly reduced by the longer duration of surgery and hospital stays.
