Four pins assisted reduction of complex segmental femoral fractures: a technique for closed reduction

Abstract

Complex segmental femoral fractures are usually not amenable to closed reduction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a series of patients who had undergone four pins assisted reduction and intramedullary nail fixation to determine the therapeutic effect of this closed reduction technique. Between December 2010 and January 2013, 15 consecutive patients with segmental femoral fractures were treated with four pins assisted reduction at our hospital. The patient was placed in a supine position on a radiolucent fracture table and a gentle traction was attempted on the limb. Usually, the proximal fracture segment exhibited the typical deformity of flexion, external rotation, and abduction, the middle segment exhibited adduction and distal fracture segment exhibited flexion. Four Schanz pins were placed percutaneously to fix one cortex and did not penetrate into the medullary cavity, and the “T” sharp handles were fixed on the Schanz pins. The fragments were then reduced by reversing the deforming forces for segmental fractures by two assistants. And then, the reduction could be easily achieved and intramedullary nail fixation was performed. Radiographs were evaluated for the quality of the reduction and fracture union. Closed reduction was achieved in all patients using the four pins technology. All 15 fractures united uneventfully. No patient had a rotational malunion or limb length discrepancy at the time of the last follow-up. Thirteen of the fifteen (86.7%) patients had anatomic reduction and two of them (13.3%) had minor varus alignment of 3° and 5°. Knee stiffness was observed in 2 patients and no implant failure was observed. Surgical treatment of complex segmental femoral fractures with four pins assisted reduction and intramedullary nail fixation techniques can result in excellent reductions and a high union rate.

Keywords

fracture / closed reduction / segmental fracture / femur

References

[1] BediA, Le ToanT. Subtrochanteric femur fractures. Orthop Clin North Am, 2004, 35(4): 473-483 PMID: 15363922

[2] BrienWW, WissDA, BeckerVJr, et al. . Subtrochanteric femur fractures: a comparison of the Zickel nail, 95 degrees blade plate, and interlocking nail. J Orthop Trauma, 1991, 5(4): 458-564 PMID: 1762008

[3] BroosPL, ReyndersP. The use of the unreamed AO femoral intramedullary nail with spiral blade in nonpathologic fractures of the femur: experiences with eighty consecutive cases. J Orthop Trauma, 2002, 16(3): 150-154 PMID: 11880776

[4] FisselB, MoedBR, BledsoeJG. Biomechanical comparison of a 2 and 3 proximal screw-configured antegrade piriformis intramedullary nail with a trochanteric reconstruction nail in an unstable subtrochanteric fracture model. J Orthop Trauma, 2008, 22(5): 337-341 PMID: 18448988

[5] FrenchBG, TornettaP. Use of an interlocked cephalomedullary nail for subtrochanteric fracture stabilization. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1998, 348: 95-100 PMID: 9553539

[6] GarnavosC, PetermanA, HowardPW. The treatment of difficult proximal femoral fractures with the Russell-Taylor reconstruction nail. Injury, 1999, 30(6): 407-415 PMID: 10645354

[7] SeyhanM, UnayK, SenerN. Comparison of reduction methods in intramedullary nailing of subtrochanteric femoral fractures. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc, 2012, 46(2): 113-119 PMID: 22491436

[8] AfsariA, LiporaceF, LindvallE, et al. . Clamp-assisted reduction of high subtrochanteric fractures of the femur: surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2010, 92(Suppl1): S217-S225

[9] ShuklaS, JohnstonP, AhmadMA, et al. . Outcome of traumatic subtrochanteric femoral fractures fixed using cephalo-medullary nails. Injury, 2007, 38(11): 1286-1293 PMID: 17981282

[10] XuF, YeYP, DongYH, et al. . Inhibitory effects of high glucose/insulin environment on osteoclast formation and resorption in vitro. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technol Med Sci, 2013, 33(2): 244-249 PMID: 23592138

[11] LiuG, YangS, DuJ, et al. . Treatment of floating knee injury in children. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technol Med Sci, 2006, 26(1): 96-98 PMID: 16711017

[12] WangH, YangZ, WuZ, et al. . A biomechanical comparison of conventional versus an anatomic plate and compression bolts for fixation of intra-articular calcaneal fractures. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technol Med Sci, 2012, 32(4): 571-575 PMID: 22886972

[13] KinastC, BolhofnerBR, MastJW, et al. . Subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. Clin Orthop, 1989, 238: 122-130 PMID: 2910593

[14] MooreTJ, WatsonT, GreenSA, et al. . Complication of surgically treated supracondylar fractures of the femur. J Trauma, 1987, 27(4): 402-406 PMID: 3553608

[15] StarrAJ, HayMT, ReinertCM, et al. . Cephalomedullary nails in the treatment of high-energy proximal femur fractures in young patients: a prospective, randomized comparison of trochanteric versus piriformis fossa entry portal. J Orthop Trauma, 2006, 20(4): 240-246 PMID: 16721238

[16] CelebiL, CanM, MuratliHH, et al. . Indirect reduction and biological internal fixation of comminuted subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. Injury, 2006, 37(8): 740-750 PMID: 16487528

[17] HasenboehlerEA, AgudeloJF, MorganSJ, et al. . Treatment of complex proximal femoral fractures with the proximal femur locking compression plate. Orthopedics, 2007, 30(8): 618-623 PMID: 17727017

[18] AfsariA, LiporaceF, LindvallE, et al. . Clamp-assisted reduction of high subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2009, 91(8): 1913-1918 PMID: 19651949

[19] BarquetA. The treatment of subtrochanteric nonunions with the long gamma nail: twenty-six patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Orthop Trauma, 2004, 18(6): 346-353 PMID: 15213499

[20] ChevalleyF, GambaD. Gamma nailing of pertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures: clinical results of a series of 63 consecutive cases. J Orthop Trauma, 1997, 11(6): 412-415 PMID: 9314147

[21] deVriesJS, KloenP, BorensO, et al. . Treatment of subtrochanteric nonunions. Injury, 2006, 37(2): 203-211

[22] DoraC, LeunigM, BeckM, et al. . Entry point soft tissue damage in antegrade femoral nailing: a cadaver study. J Orthop Trauma, 2001, 15(7): 488-493 PMID: 11602831

[23] KraemerWJ, HearnTC, PowellJN, et al. . Fixation of segmental subtrochanteric fractures. A biomechanical study. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1996, 332: 71-79 PMID: 8913147

[24] OstrumRF, MarcantonioA, MargurgerR. A critical analysis of the eccentric starting point for trochanteric intramedullary femoral nailing. J Orthop Trauma, 2005, 19(10): 681-686 PMID: 16314714

[25] PughKJ, MorganRA, GorczycaJT, et al. . A mechanical comparison of subtrochanteric femur fracture fixation. J Orthop Trauma, 1998, 12(5): 324-329 PMID: 9671183

[26] RobertsCS, NawabA, WangM, et al. . Second generation intramedullary nailing of subtrochanteric femur fractures: a biomechanical study of fracture site motion. J Orthop Trauma, 2002, 16(4): 231-238 PMID: 11927803

[27] RobinsonCM, HoushianS, KhanLA. Trochanteric-entry long cephalomedullary nailing of subtrochanteric fractures caused by low-energy trauma. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2005, 87(10): 2217-2226 PMID: 16203886

[28] ShuklaS, JohnstonP, AhmadMA, et al. . Out-come of traumatic subtrochanteric femoral fractures fixed using cephalo-medullary nails. Injury, 2007, 38(11): 1286-1293 PMID: 17981282

[29] van DoornR, StapertJW. The long gamma nail in the treatment of 329 subtrochanteric fractures with major extension into the femoral shaft. Eur J Surg, 2000, 166(3): 240-246 PMID: 10755340

[30] WaddellJP. Subtrochanteric fractures of the femur: a review of 130 patients. J Trauma, 1979, 19(8): 582-592 PMID: 469971