Intertrochanteric fracture Musculoskeletal Diseases Intertrochanteric fracture
Conditions
Interventions
We retrospectively analyzed the data from medical records of patients who underwent closed reduction and intramedullary internal fixation (CRIF) to treat intertrochanteric fractures. All patients were
Sponsors
Chinese PLA General Hospital
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: 1. Computerised tomography (CT) scan data of the proximal femur obtained before surgical intervention 2. CT image thickness less than 3.0 mm 3. A minimum of 1 year of radiographic follow-up 4. Patients aged 18 years and older 5. Low-energy mechanism of injury 6. Participants underwent internal fixation using a intramedullary nail
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: 1. Pathological fractures such as carcinomas, metastases of the bone, primary malignant or benign tumors, and metabolic disorders 2. Patient had mental disorder 3. Patient walked with assistive device before the fracture 4. Fractures with associated neurovascular injuries 5. Patient had pre-existing osteoarthritis or previous surgeries to the affected hip joints
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Radiographic parameters were measured on the radiographs obtained immediate postoperatively and the final follow-up using the measuring devices on the digital screen. All results were calibrated according to the ratio of the known diameter of the cephalic nail to its diameter on the digital image. Complications like loss of reduction, cut-out, excessive sliding of the cephalic nail, implant breakage, nonunion, infection, periprosthetic fracture and loss of mobility were some of the complications recorded during the follow-up. We defined loss of reduction as the loss of NSA greater than 10°. Excessive sliding was defined as sliding distance =10 mm. 1. Femoral head height (FHH). The FHH relative to the nail was measured, allowing for the subsequent loss of reduction analysis. This measurement was done by drawing two lines, both perpendicular to the shaft nail. One was placed at the top edge of the nail and one was placed at the superior edge of the femoral head. The distance between these two lines was measured and designated as the FHH. 2. Femoral neck-shaft angle (FNSA). FNSA was measured by the angle between the femoral shaft and the femoral neck shaft. 3. The length of medial cephalic nail (Lmcn). Lmcn was the distance between the tip of the cephalic nail and medial edge of the shaft nail. The sliding distance of the cephalic nail was calculated by the Lmcn parameter in two periods. 4. Tip-cortex distance (TCD). TCD was the distance from the tip of cephalic nail to the femoral head cortex. 5. Tip-apex distance (TAD). We calculated TAD as described by Baumgaertner et al. using the anteroposterior and lateral radiographs to evaluate the implant position. | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| 1. The Functional Independence Measure (FIM) assessment of degree of disability depends on the patient's score in 18 categories, focusing on motor and cognitive function at the final follow-up 2. Functional level was also measured using the Parker-Palmer mobility score at the final follow-up 3.Time taken to rise from a standard arm chair, walk 3 meters at a comfortable pace using their customary walking aid, turn, walk back to the chair, and sit down is measured using timed “Up & Go” (TUG) test at the final follow-up 4. 2-minute walk test (2MWT), which measures the distance walked in 2 minutes | — |
Countries
China
Outcome results
None listed