Six-Part Classification of Femoral Intertrochanteric Fractures: A Classification Method to Improve the Diagnosis Rate of Unstable Fractures

ZhengHao Wang, KaiNan Li, Chao Peng

PDF
Orthopaedic Surgery ›› 2024, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (3) : 637-653. DOI: 10.1111/os.13998
CLINICAL ARTICLE

Six-Part Classification of Femoral Intertrochanteric Fractures: A Classification Method to Improve the Diagnosis Rate of Unstable Fractures

Author information +
History +

Abstract

Objective: Three-dimensional (3D)-CT data is currently insufficient for classifying femoral trochanter fractures. Fracture classification based on fracture stability analysis is helpful to evaluate the prognosis of patients after internal fixation. Currently, there is a lack of fracture classification methods based on 3D-CT images and fracture stability analysis. The aim of this study was to propose a new six-part classification method for intertrochanteric fractures of femur based on 3D-CT images and fracture stability analysis to improve the diagnosis rate of unstable fractures.

Method: From January 2009 to December 2019, 320 patients receiving intramedullary nail surgery for femoral intertrochanteric fractures at Chengdu University's Affiliated Hospital were studied retrospectively. AO and six-part classifications were undertaken according to the 3D-CT image data of the patients, and the stability rates of two classifications were compared. According to the six-part classification stability criteria, the patients were divided into a stable and an unstable fracture group. The perioperative and follow-up indicators of the two groups were statistically analyzed, and the six-part classification's inter-observer and internal reliability was examined.

Results: There were 107 men and 213 females women the 320 patients, with an average age of 79.32 ± 11.26 years and an osteoporosis rate of 55.63% (178/320). The fracture stability rate of 39.69% (127/320) was studied using a six-part classification method. The AO classification fracture stability rate was 42.50% (136/320), with no significant difference (χ2 = 0.523, p = 0.470 > 0.05). There is no statistically significant difference between the two classification techniques in the examination of fracture stability (McNemer difference test p = 0.306 > 0.05; Kappa consistency test p < 0.001). According to the six-part classification, fracture stability and instability group were divided into two groups. The following indicators were compared between the two groups: The surgery time (p = 0.280), fracture reduction quality (p = 0.062); function independent measurement (p = 0.075); timed up and go test (TUG) (p = 0.191), and Parker-Palmer score (p = 0.146). Were as compared according to the six-part classification of stable and unstable fracture groups. Perioperative blood loss (p < 0.001), the Harris score excellent and good rate (p = 0.043), fracture healing time (p < 0.001), and the entire weight-bearing duration (p = 0.002) were statistically significant. The difference in femoral head height (FHH) (p = 0.046), the change in femoral neck shaft angle (p = 0.003), the change in medial cephalic nail length (p = 0.033), and the change in tip–apex distance (TAD) (p = 0.002) were statistically significant compared to the relevant markers of imaging stability. Fracture stability had a substantial influence on Harris ratings at 3, 6, and 12 months following surgery, according to repeated measures analysis of variance (F(1,126) = 32.604, p < 0.001). The effect of time on the Harris score was similarly significant (F(1.893,238.508) = 202.771, p < 0.001). The observer intra-observer inter-group correlation coefficient (ICC) value was 0.941 > 0.75, the inter-observer ICC value was 0.921 > 0.75, and the intra-observer and inter-observer reliability were both good.

Conclusion: The six-part classification of femoral intertrochanteric fractures based on 3D-CT images has broader guiding relevance for femoral intertrochanteric fracture stability analysis. Clinicians will find this classification simpler and more consistent than the AO classification.

Keywords

AO Classification / Classification / Fracture, Intertrochanteric / Internal Fixation / Six-Part Classification / Stability

Cite this article

Download citation ▾
ZhengHao Wang, KaiNan Li, Chao Peng. Six-Part Classification of Femoral Intertrochanteric Fractures: A Classification Method to Improve the Diagnosis Rate of Unstable Fractures. Orthopaedic Surgery, 2024, 16(3): 637‒653 https://doi.org/10.1111/os.13998

References

[1]
Prior JC, Langsetmo L, Lentle BC, et al. Ten-year incident osteoporosis-related fractures in the population-based Canadian multicentre osteoporosis study–comparing site and age-specific risks in women and men. Bone. 2015;71:237–243.
[2]
Liu VX, Rosas E, Hwang J, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery program implementation in 2 surgical populations in an integrated health care delivery system. JAMA Surg. 2017;152:e171032.
[3]
Flikweert Elvira R, Izaks Gerbrand J, Knobben Bas AS, et al. The development of a comprehensive multidisciplinary care pathway for patients with a hip fracture: design and results of a clinical trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:188.
[4]
Quinn Robert H, Murray Jayson N, Pezold R. The American academy of orthopaedic surgeons appropriate use criteria for management of hip fractures in the elderly. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98:1222–1225.
[5]
Varela-Egocheaga JR, Iglesias-Colao R, Suárez-Suárez MA, Fernández-Villán M, González-Sastre V, Murcia-Mazón A. Minimally invasive osteosynthesis in stable trochanteric fractures: a comparative study between Gotfried percutaneous compression plate and gamma 3 intramedullary nail. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009;129(10):1401–1407.
[6]
Knobe M, Drescher W, Heussen N, Sellei RM, Pape HC. Is helical blade nailing superior to locked minimally invasive plating in unstable Pertrochanteric fractures? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(8):2302–2312.
[7]
Zhang S, Zhang K, Jia Y, Yu B, Feng W. InterTan nail versus proximal femoral nail Antirotation-Asia in the treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures. Orthopedics. 2013;36(3):e288–e294.
[8]
Sarmiento A. The stability of intertrochanteric fractures. Curr Orthop Pract. 2011;22(5):451–455.
[9]
Marsh JL, Songo TF, Agel J. Fracture and dislocation compendium: orthopaedic trauma association committee classification, database and outcomes committee. J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21(10 Suppl):1-133.
[10]
Evans ME. The treatment of trochanteric fractures of the femur. Bone Joint J. 1949;31(2):190–203.
CrossRef Google scholar
[11]
Boyd HB, Griffin LL. Classification and treatment of trochanteric fractures. Arch Surg. 1949;58:853–866.
[12]
Embden DV, Rhemrev SJ, Meylaerts SAG, et al. The comparison of two classifications for trochanteric femur fractures: the AO/ASIF classification and the Jensen classification. Injury. 2010;41(4):377–381.
[13]
Gavaskar AS. Helical blade or the integrated lag screws: a matched pair analysis of 100 patients with unstable trochanteric fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2018;32:274–277.
[14]
Schlickewei CW, Rueger JM, Ruecker AH. Nailing of displaced intertrochanteric hip fractures. Tech Orthop. 2015;30(2):70–86.
[15]
Hsu CE, Chiu YC, Tsai SH, Lin TC, Lee MH, Huang KC. Trochanter stabilising plate improves treatment outcomes in AO/OTA 31-A2 intertrochanteric fractures with critical thin femoral lateral walls. Injury. 2015;46(6):1047–1053.
[16]
Güven M, Kocadal O, Akman B, Poyanlı OS, Kemah B, Atay EF. Proximal femoral nail shows better concordance of gait analysis between operated and uninjured limbs compared to hemiarthroplasty in intertrochanteric femoral fractures. Injury. 2016;47:1325–1331.
[17]
Thein E, De Cannière A, Burn A, Borens O. Medial migration of lag screw after gamma nailing. Injury. 2014;45(8):1275–1279.
CrossRef Google scholar
[18]
Misir A, Ozturk K, Kizkapan TB, Yildiz KI, Gur V, Sevencan A. Fracture lines and comminution zones in OTA/AO type 23C3 distal radius fractures: The distal radius map. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong), 2018;26:2309499017754107.
[19]
Fogagnolo F, Kfuri M, Paccola CA. Intramedullary fixation ofpertrochanteric hip fractures with the short AO-ASIF proximalfemoral nail. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2004;124(1):31–37.
[20]
Ma CH, Tu YK, Yu SW, Yen CY, Yeh JH, Wu CH. Reverse LISS plates for unstable proximal femoral fracture. Injury. 2010;41(8):827–833.
[21]
Mikhail S, Janne L, Petteri J, et al. Pre- and postintervention factor structure of functional independence measure in patients with spinal cord injury. Rehabil Res Pract. 2017;2017(1):693–698.
[22]
Birgit P, Prodinger B, Gerold S, et al. Establishing score equivalence of the functional Independence measure motor scale and the barthel index, utilizing the international classification of functioning, disability and health and rasch measurement theory. J Rehabil Med. 2017;49(5):416–422.
[23]
Sanders D, Bryant D, Tieszer C, Lawendy A, MacLeod M, Papp S, et al. A multicenter randomized controltrial comparing a novel intramedullary device(InterTAN) versus conventional treatment (sliding hip screw) of geriatric hip fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2017;31(1):1–8.
[24]
Parker M, Palmer C. A new mobility score for predicting mortality after hip fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75(5):797–798.
[25]
Li J, Tang S, Zhang H, et al. Clustering of morphological fracture lines for identifying intertrochanteric fracture classification with Hausdorff distance-based K-means approach. Injury. 2019;50:939–949.
[26]
Flores SA, Woolridge A, Caroom C, Jenkins M. The utility of the tip-apex distance in predicting axial migration and cutout with the trochanteric fixation nail system helical blade. J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30(6):e207–e211.
[27]
Kaufer H. Mechanics of the treatment of hip injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1980;146(146):53–61.
[28]
Xiong WF, Zhang YQ, Chang SM, Hu SJ, Du SC. Lesser trochanteric fragments in unstable Pertrochanteric hip fractures: a morphological study using three-dimensional computed tomography (3-D CT) reconstruction. Med Sci Monit. 2019;25:2049–2057.
[29]
Sheehan Scott E, Shyu Jeffrey Y, Weaver Michael J, et al. Proximal femoral fractures: what the orthopedic surgeon wants to know. Radiographics. 2015;35:1563–1584.
[30]
Cavaignac E, Lecoq M, Ponsot A, Moine A, Bonnevialle N, Mansat P, et al. CT scan does not improve the reproducibility of trochanteric fracture classification: a prospective observational study of 53 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013;99(1):46–51.
[31]
Gotfried Y. The lateral trochanteric wall: a key element in the reconstruction of unstable pertrochanteric hip fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;425:82–86.
[32]
Schipper IB, Steyerberg EW, Castelein RM, Vugt AB. Reliability of the AO/ASIF classification for pertrochanteric femoral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001;72(1):36–41.
[33]
Fung W, Jönsson A, Bühren V, Bhandari M. Classifying intertrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur: does experience matter? Med Princ Pract. 2007;16(3):198–202.
[34]
Pervez H, Parker MJ, Pryor GA, Lutchman L, Chirodian N. Classification of trochanteric fracture of the proximal femur: a study of the reliability of current systems. Injury. 2002;33(8):713–715.
[35]
De Boeck H. Classification of hip fractures. Acta Orthop Belg. 1994;60(Suppl 1):106–109.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 2024 The Authors. Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
PDF

Accesses

Citations

Detail

Sections
Recommended

/