About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Home Print this page Email this page Users Online: 161

 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 18  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 22-26

Role of reconstruction intramedullary nailing in the treatment of ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures


Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, J.N. Medical College, A.M.U, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, J.N. Medical College, A.M.U, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India

Date of Web Publication15-Feb-2018

Correspondence Address:
Ziaul Hoda Shaan
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, J.N. Medical College, AMU, Aligarh - 202 002, Uttar Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/sjsm.sjsm_40_17

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Background: Ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures are an uncommon injury, and many a times, femoral neck fracture is missed initially making treatment of these fractures a challenge to the treating surgeon. Still controversy exists regarding which technique and implant provide optimal treatment of these complex injuries. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures treated with reconstruction intramedullary nailing.
Materials and Methods: Eighteen patients having ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures were included in this study. One patient was having bilateral involvement. All the patients were treated by close reduction and internal fixation with reconstruction intramedullary nailing. Average follow-up period was 3.5 years (range 2–8 years).
Results: According to Friedman–Wayman criteria, the outcome was good in 14 (77.8%), fair in 3 (16.7%), and poor in 1 (5.5%) patient. Femoral shaft fracture in one patient who was having bilateral involvement went into nonunion which required revision nailing with antegrade femoral interlocking nail.
Conclusion: The treatment of these injuries with reconstruction intramedullary nailing is advantageous in terms of possible close antegrade nailing with minimal surgical trauma, reduced blood loss, less incidence of infection, and biological fixation of both fractures with a single implant.

  Abstract in Arabic 

الخلفية: العنق الفخذي وكسور رمح هي إصابة بنفس الجهة غير مألوفة، وكثيرا ما غاب كسر الرقبة في البداية مما يجعل علاج هذه الكسور تحديا للجراح المعالج. ولا يزال هناك جدل حول أي وسيلة علاجية او وزرع يوفر العلاج الأمثل لهذه الإصابات المعقدة. وكان الغرض من هذه الدراسة تقييم نتائج علاج كسر رقبة ورمح الفخذ وبنفس الجهة بواسطة اعادة التعمير بالتسمير داخل النقي.
المواد والطرق: تم تضمين ثمانية عشر مريضا لديهم كسور رقبة ورمح الفخذ بنفس الجهة الدراسة. وكان أحد المرضى يعاني من مشاركة ثنائية. تم علاج جميع المرضى عن طريق خفض وثيق والتثبيت الداخلي مع اعادة التعمير بالتسمير داخل النقي. وكان متوسط ​​فترة المتابعة 3.5 سنوات (المدى 2-8 سنوات).
النتائج: وفقا لمعايير فريدمان-وايمان، كانت النتيجة جيدة في 14 (77.8٪)، متوسطة في 3 (16.7٪)، وضعيفة في 1 (5.5٪) من لمرضى. كسر رمح الفخذ في مريض واحد الذي كان يعانى من كسر بالجانبين لم يتحد الكسر لديه تتطلب ذلك مراجعة تسمير مع بمسامير متشابكة.
الخلاصة: علاج هذه الإصابات مع اعادة التعمير بالتسمير داخل النقي هو مفيد من حيث بممكن وثيق مع الحد الأدنى من التلف الجراحية، وانخفاض فقدان الدم، وأقل وقوعا للعدوى، والتثبيت البيولوجي لكلا الكسور مع زرع واحد.

Keywords: Ipsilateral, femoral shaft and neck fractures, reconstruction nail


How to cite this article:
Ahmad S, Shaan ZH, Faizan M, Jilani LZ, Asif N, Abbas M. Role of reconstruction intramedullary nailing in the treatment of ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures. Saudi J Sports Med 2018;18:22-6

How to cite this URL:
Ahmad S, Shaan ZH, Faizan M, Jilani LZ, Asif N, Abbas M. Role of reconstruction intramedullary nailing in the treatment of ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures. Saudi J Sports Med [serial online] 2018 [cited 2018 Aug 14];18:22-6. Available from: http://www.sjosm.org/text.asp?2018/18/1/22/225296




  Introduction Top


Ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures are an uncommon injury pattern, occurring in 2% to 6% of all femoral shaft fractures.[1],[2] The pattern of injury presents a challenge to the treating orthopedic surgeon. Complications such as avascular necrosis (AVN) of femoral head, nonunion, malunion, and fat embolism are frequent complications encountered during management. The associated injury pattern was initially described in 1953. Since then, approximately 300 instances of this injury have been reported in the literature, and more than 60 treatment alternatives have been described.[3] Injury generally is a result of high-velocity trauma with the patients being relatively young with an average age of 34.6 years.[1],[4],[5] Multisystem injuries occurred in 73% to 100% of patients.[1],[3],[4],[5] The femoral shaft fracture is usually in the middle third, and neck fracture is basilar, vertically oriented, and minimally displaced. Initially, 41.7% of femoral neck fractures remained undiagnosed but after 1974 (the year the first review article on this injury was published), this has reduced to 11% in various cases reported since then due to increased awareness, better radiographic assessment, and management protocols.[3],[6],[7],[8]

The timing of surgery, implant selection, and what sequence of fixation to be followed need to be taken into consideration. Although various implants have been used, no consensus has been achieved regarding the best and optimum treatment procedure. The selected implant should provide a stable and anatomic fracture reduction that would provide early mobilization of patient and high-union rates with reduced complications.[5],[9] The use of a single cephalomedullary nail has been advocated based on the ease of application and decreased surgical time and blood loss.[10],[11] Although there are reports which show that the use of two separate implant for individual fracture provides better result in terms of fracture reduction and complication rates.[12],[13]

The purpose of this study is to provide the result of fixation of ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures using reconstruction intramedullary nail as fixation device.


  Materials and Methods Top


The study was prospective in nature, conducted between January 2006 and December 2015 and included patients presenting with ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures to our orthopedic Emergency Department. All patients sustained an injury in high-velocity road traffic accidents. Patients having open injuries or those requiring open reduction were excluded from our study. A total of 18 patients were included in our study with 17 patients having unilateral injury while one had bilateral injury. Therefore, total of 19 femoral shaft and neck fracture were evaluated. There were 15 male and 3 female patients with a mean age of 36 years (range 20–55 years). The mean delay of presentation from the time of sustaining injury was 3.2 days (range 1–8 days). Moreover, the mean delay in operation was 6 days (range 4–10 days). There were no other associated injuries or comorbidities in any of the patient.

Plain radiographs of pelvis including both hips anteroposterior as well as radiographs of whole thigh anteroposterior and lateral view were taken. After necessary initial resuscitation, surgical management was done. Patients were mounted on traction table, and closed reduction was achieved under image intensifier with the limb being in slight abduction and internal rotation. The reconstruction nail was inserted through a lateral entry point made through lateral cortex just distal to the tip of greater trochanter. Reaming was performed under strict image intensifier monitoring so that the reduction of neck fracture was maintained. Proximal screws were inserted under image intensifier control, followed by the distal locking [Figure 1] and [Figure 2].
Figure 1: (a and b) Radiograph of a 30-year-old male with ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fracture. (c) Immediate postoperative fixation of fractures using reconstruction intramedullary nail. (d and e) Follow-up X-rays after 1 and 3 years of operation. Showing union at both neck and shaft fracture sites

Click here to view
Figure 2: (a and b) Ipsilateral fracture neck and shaft of femur in a 28-year male patient (yellow arrows). (c) Immediate postoperative X-ray with gap present at neck fracture (red arrow). (d and e) Two years postoperative X-ray with union at both the neck and femoral shaft fracture sites

Click here to view


Patients were mobilized early that is active quadriceps drill, knee physiotherapy, and nonweight-bearing walk was started from the second postoperative day with the aid of axillary crutches. Partial weight-bearing was started when the signs of callus formation were seen on the radiographs in subsequent follow-ups. The radiological union was said to have occurred when bridging trabeculae appeared across fracture site at the neck region and callus with density similar to cortex was found connecting both fracture fragments of shaft femur. The fracture was said to be in nonunion when it did not heal at the end of 1 year of treatment or the one which required secondary surgery for achieving union.


  Results Top


All femoral shaft and neck fracture united except in one patient whose femoral shaft went into nonunion and in another neck femur fracture went into nonunion. The mean duration of surgery was 140 ± 15 min. The mean follow-up was 3.5 years (range 2–8 years). Average union time for femoral neck fracture was 20 weeks and average union time for the femoral shaft fracture was 24 weeks. Femoral shaft fracture in one patient who was having bilateral involvement went into nonunion, which required revision nailing with femoral interlocking nail [Figure 3]. Neck fracture in one patient went into nonunion for this, nail was removed after shaft united, and neck fracture was fixed with 2 (7.0 mm) cannulated cancellous screws along with fibular strut grafting. This fracture united after 6 months. None of the cases went into AVN of the femoral head till the last follow-up. Based on Friedman-Wyman criteria, the outcome was Good in 14 (77.8%), Fair in 3 (16.7%), and poor in 1 (5.5%) patient [Table 1] and [Table 2]. Data comprising of femur shaft fracture pattern and level are given in [Table 3] and [Table 4], respectively.
Figure 3: (a and b) Bilateral fracture neck and shaft femur fracture in a 35-year female (orange arrows); (c-e) Immediate postoperative X-ray right femur and right hip anteroposterior and lateral view of right side (c and d respectively), while Figure 3e shows that of left side. (f-h) Three months postoperative X-ray with gap present at right femoral shaft fracture site. (i-k) Nine months postoperative X-ray showing lag screw back out on right side with gap still present at right femur shaft fracture hence dynamization of distal screws were done on the right side while union can be seen progressing at both neck and shaft fracture site on left side. (l) Lag screw removed on the right side after 11 months postoperative (m and n) Exchange nailing done on the right side 12 months post operatively as the shaft femur went into nonunion. (o-q) Three years postoperative X-rays of the patient showing union at bilateral femoral neck and shaft fracture sites

Click here to view
Table 1: Functional assessment criteria based on Friedman–Wyman (1986)

Click here to view
Table 2: Master chart of patients

Click here to view
Table 3: Winquist classification of femoral shaft fracture used to classify patients

Click here to view
Table 4: Level of femoral shaft fractures

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


Through this case series, we have shown the result of reconstruction intramedullary nail used for treating ipsilateral femoral shaft and neck fractures. In our study, 95% of the patients had good to fair result. The development this cephalomedullary nail has provided the advantage of an all-in-one device. The advantages being shorter operative time, single positioning, reduced blood loss through a single incision, and the biomechanical benefits of using a nail for the shaft fracture. A variety of fixation methods have been recommended to date; these include multiple flexible Ender nails with supplementary pinning, varying combinations of retrograde nailing or plate fixation for femoral shaft and for neck fractures dynamic hip screw or cannulated screw fixation, antegrade interlocking nailing with screw neck fixation. However, the optimal treatment protocol remains controversial.

With the use of reconstruction nail problems, such as knee pain and stiffness from retrograde nailing or extensive dissection and stress shielding for plate fixation are avoided. In addition, reconstruction nailing presumably avoids the technical difficulties of placing supplemental screws to stabilize the femoral neck in the presence of a standard femoral nail. However, the procedure is technically demanding. Nail insertion may cause further displacement of an undisplaced or minimally displaced femoral neck fracture, which then may be difficult to reduce. Importantly, difficulties have been reported in obtaining rotational alignment of the fractures as well as in achieving correct positioning of the proximal interlocking screws.[12]

The neck fracture is most commonly missed (incidence ranging between 13% and 30%).[14],[15] The most common reasons for the neck fracture to be missed include inadequate radiographic imaging, minimal displacement of the neck fracture, and the presence of other orthopedic or life-threatening injuries. This can be minimized by being vigilant and aware of this injury pattern and the routine use of pelvic and hip joint radiographs on admission according to the ATLS protocol.[16]

Whether to use a single or two separate devices for the fixation of this combination of fractures is still the matter of debate. Tsai et al.[17] found no significant difference in the amount of blood loss, duration of surgery, complications, or clinical results but identified an 11-fold less complication rate in the group of antegrade nailing with cannulated screw fixation of the neck fracture compared with the DHS with LCDCP group. Bedi et al.[18] found that internal fixation of the neck fracture followed by retrograde nailing of the shaft fracture led to more accurate reduction and improved union rates compared with a single cephalomedullary device.

The complications associated with the surgical management of this pattern of injury include AVN of the femoral head, nonunion, or delayed union of fracture, malunion, fat or pulmonary embolism, and infection. The prevalence of AVN ranges between 3% and 4% in most reported series. Nonunion of the femoral neck fracture occurs in approximately 5%.[19] Bose et al.[6] treated five patients with ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures on a delayed basis. Varus malunion of the femoral neck attributable to technical error in inserting the reconstruction nail developed in only one of the five. However, the authors described the use of the reconstruction nail as technically difficult in this setting.

Femoral shaft nonunion or delayed union, in comparison, is more likely. Jain et al. reported a 20% incidence of femoral shaft nonunion using reconstruction nailing.[12] Vidyadhara and Rao [20] reported delayed union of the shaft fracture in 22 out of 43 patients. In our study, one patient who was having bilateral involvement went into nonunion which required revision nailing with femoral interlocking nail.

However, the limitations of our study are the number of patients examined, and no comparison was made between different fixation techniques. To conclude, ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures are uncommon but potentially devastating injuries. Our study lends ample support for the use of reconstruction nail as a fixation device for ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures. Although there is still, the need for larger prospective comparison studies using cephalomedullary nailing and the use of combination of implants for fixing these fractures.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form the patient(s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Zettas JP, Zettas P. Ipsilateral fractures of the femoral neck and shaft. Clin Orthop 1981;160:63-73.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Winquist RA, Hansen ST Jr, Clawson DK. Closed intramedullary nailing of femoral fractures: A report of five hundred and twenty cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1984;66:529-39.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.
Swiontkowski MF. Ipsilateral femoral shaft and hip fractures. Orthop Clin North Am 1987;18:73-84.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Wiss DA, Sima W, Brien WW. Ipsilateral fractures of the femoral neck and shaft. J Orthop Trauma 1992;6:159-66.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Swiontkowski MF, Hansen ST Jr, Kellam J. Ipsilateral fractures of the femoral neck and shaft: A treatment protocol. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1984;66:260-8.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Bose WJ, Corces A, Anderson LD. A preliminary experience with the Russell-Taylor reconstruction nail for complex femoral fractures. J Trauma 1992;32:71-6.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Casey MJ, Chapman MW. Ipsilateral concomitant fractures of the hip and femoral shaft. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1979;61:503-9.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Gill SS, Nagi ON, Dhillon MS. Ipsilateral fractures of femoral neck and shaft. J Orthop Trauma 1990;4:293-8.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Haidukewych GJ, Rothwell WS, Jacofsky DJ, Torchia ME, Berry DJ. Operative treatment of femoral neck fractures in patients between the ages of fifteen and fifty years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004:86:1711-6.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Hossam ElShafie M, Adel Morsey H, Emad Eid Y. Ipsilateral fracture of the femoral neck and shaft, treatment by reconstruction interlocking nail. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2001;121:71-4.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Jain P, Maini L, Mishra P, Upadhyay A, Agarwal A. Cephalomedullary interlocked nail for ipsilateral hip and femoral shaft fractures. Injury 2004;35:1031-8.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Oh CW, Oh JK, Park BC, Jeon IH, Kyung HS, Kim SY, et al. Retrograde nailing with subsequent screw fixation for ipsilateral femoral shaft and neck fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2006;126:448-45.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Peljovich AE, Patterson BM. Ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 1998;6:106-13.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Alho A. Concurrent ipsilateral fractures of the hip and femoral shaft: A meta-analysis of 659 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 1996;67:19-28.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Plancher KD, Donshik JD. Femoral neck and ipsilateral neck and shaft fractures in the young adult. Orthop Clin North Am 1997;28:447-59.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Tornetta P 3rd, Kain MS, Creevy WR. Diagnosis of femoral neck fractures in patients with a femoral shaft fracture. Improvement with a standard protocol. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89:39-43.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Tsai CH, Hsu HC, Fong YC, Lin CJ, Chen YH, Hsu CJ. Treatment for ipsilateral fractures of femoral neck and shaft. Injury 2009;40:778-82.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Bedi A, Karunakar MA, Caron T, Sanders RW, Haidukewych GJ. Accuracy of reduction of ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures–an analysis of various internal fixation strategies. J Orthop Trauma 2009;23:249-53.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Alho A. Ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 1999;7:76-8.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Vidyadhara S, Rao SK. Cephalomedullary nails in the management of ipsilateral neck and shaft fractures of the femur– one or two femoral neck screws? Injury 2009;40:296-303.  Back to cited text no. 20
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed270    
    Printed16    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded28    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal