SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.17 issue4An audit of circular external fixation usage in a tertiary hospital in South AfricaThe prevalence and risk factors for urinary tract infection in elderly patients presenting with proximal femoral fractures: a prospective observational study author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • On index processSimilars in Google

Share


SA Orthopaedic Journal

On-line version ISSN 2309-8309
Print version ISSN 1681-150X

SA orthop. j. vol.17 n.4 Centurion Oct./Dec. 2018

http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/2309-8309/2018/v17n4a2 

TRAUMA

 

Unstable intertrochanteric fracture in elderly patients: outcome of primary cemented bipolar hemiarthroplasty versus internal fixation

 

 

Elhadi ASI; Gashi YNII

IMD; Department of Orthopaedics, Ibrahim Malik Teaching Hospital, Khartoum, Sudan
IIMD; Assistant Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Khartoum, Soba University Hospital

Correspondence

 

 


ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of internal fixation in comparison with primary cemented bipolar (PCB) hemiarthroplasty in elderly patients with unstable intertrochanteric fracture.
METHODS: A prospective cohort multicentre study compared cemented bipolar (n=60) to osteosynthesis (n=57) in unstable intertrochanteric fracture (AO/OTA classification) in the elderly. Peri-operative mortality, complications and functional outcome were used as main outcome measures.
RESULTS: The two groups were comparable in age, sex, comorbidity, mode of trauma, and classification of fracture. In hemiarthroplasty, 93.3% of patients were able to start partial weight bearing on post-operative day 1, while in the internal fixation group, 75.4% of patients started partial weight bearing after two weeks post-operatively. At the final follow-up, one year after surgery, the mortality rate did not differ between the two groups, but general and mechanical complications were more common in the internal fixation group. The mean Harris Hip Score at final follow-up was better in the hemiarthroplasty group (91.14 vs 74.33).
CONCLUSION: Primary cemented bipolar hemiarthroplasty was superior to internal fixation in terms of lower complication rates and better functional outcome.
Level of evidence: Level 4.

Key words: unstable intertrochanteric fracture, osteosynthesis, hemiarthroplasty, internal fixation.


 

 

Introduction

The intertrochanteric fracture is one of the most common fractures of the hip in the elderly, and usually is a result of low-energy trauma;1 it accounts for up to 48% of all hip fractures.2 These fractures are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality, mechanical complications, and great financial burden to patients and their families.3,4 Stable fractures can be easily treated with osteosynthesis with predictable results. However, the management of unstable intertrochanteric (Evans type II and AO/OTA type 31-A2.2 and 2.3)5,6 fractures in elderly patients is a challenge because of the difficulty in obtaining anatomical reduction and the increased rates of morbidity and mortality.

In the literature, a variety of methods have been used to manage intertrochanteric fractures; however, each method has its own limitations.7,8 Hemiarthroplasty replacements have been shown to achieve early rehabilitation of the patient and good long-term results.9-12 However, the ideal treatment method for intertrochanteric fractures is still unclear because of the poor quality of bone mass, comorbid disorders, and difficulty in rehabilitating patients.

The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of primary cemented bipolar (PCB) hemiarthroplasty with internal fixation in the management of comminuted intertrochanteric hip fractures in elderly patients.

 

Methods

This was a prospective cohort hospital-based study conducted at three main tertiary hospitals. The study was conducted over a period of two years (January 2014 to February 2016). A total of 117 patients were enrolled in the study, all 65 years of age and above, with unstable intertrochanteric fracture. Those with stable fractures, age less than 65 years and with pathological fractures were excluded from the study. The study patients were treated by orthopaedic surgeons with a minimum of three years' experience in hip trauma.

Fifty-seven patients were treated with internal fixation (dynamic hip screw and proximal femoral nail) and 60 patients were treated with PCB hemiarthroplasty; the method of treatment was selected according to hospital policy. Personal data, mode of trauma and comorbidity were reported using a structured questionnaire. Fractures were classified according to AO/OTA classification.6 Details about intra-operative events (e.g. duration of surgery and blood loss) were reported. Partial weight bearing, hospital stay, full weight bearing, infection, and other complications were used as predictors of post-operative improvement and complications. All patients received pre-operative prophylactic antibiotics (1.5 mg of cefuroxime with induction of anaesthesia) and post-operative anticoagulant treatment (4 000 IU of low-molecular-weight heparin). All patients were seen at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks post-operatively, and at the final follow-up, which was one-year post surgery in both groups. All patients were evaluated using the Harris Hip Score13 at 3 months and at the final follow-up to assess functional outcomes. Peri-operative mortality, complications and functional outcome were used as main outcome measures.

Surgical procedure

Dynamic hip screw (DHS)

On the traction table, through a direct lateral femoral approach with vastus lateralis reflection in the majority of cases (94.7%), the lag screw was applied after reduction, and its position checked with a C-arm. Tip apex distance (TAD) was taken into consideration and within accepted limits. Thereafter, a side plate was fixed to the femoral shaft with cortical screws. The device used was SH Pitkar Orthotools Pvt Ltd, Pimpri-Chinchwad, India (Figure 1).

Proximal femoral nail (PFN)

On the traction table, a minimal incision was made above the greater trochanter, under C-arm viewing, through the trochanteric entrance. Canal opening and serial reaming were performed and the size and length of the proximal femoral nail (PFN) was chosen. Intramedullary nailing (IMN) was introduced with two proximal lag screws through handle (jig), then two distal locking screws applied. The outcome was assessed with the C-arm. The device used was produced by MJ surgical, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India (Figure 2).

PCB hemiarthroplasty

All arthroplasties were performed through the lateral Hardinge approach in the decubitus position. The head and bony fragments were removed except for the greater trochanter. The greatly fragmented calcar was removed and remodelled with cement in three cases (Figure 3); the lesser trochanter was not removed. Thereafter, the greater trochanter was reattached with cerclage wire and a cemented bipolar prosthesis was applied. The implant used was the LINK SP II hip prosthesis produced by Waldemar Link- Hamburg, Germany (Figure 4).

Data analysis

The collected data were analysed with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 21 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). The level of significance was set as p0.05. Variables were analysed using the chi square and Fisher's exact tests.

 

Results

There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of demographic data (age, sex), fracture type (classification), mode of trauma, comorbidities and mean follow-up duration (Table I). Allocation of patients to either of the two groups depended on the protocol used in the hospital where the treatment was performed.

 

 

The duration of surgical operation with hemiarthroplasty was less compared to fixation. This difference was significant as only four patients in the hemiarthroplasty group, compared to 12 patients in the fixation group, needed more than 2 hours of surgery (p=0.044).

Regarding intra-operative complications, the need for blood transfusion was less in the fixation group (28 patients) than in the hemiarthroplasty group (37 patients); however, this difference was statistically non-significant (p=0.209).

Considering post-operative outcome parameters, patients who underwent hemiarthroplasty had a shorter post-operative hospital stay compared to patients that underwent fixation; 56 patients in the hemiarthroplasty group, compared to 30 patients in the fixation group, needed hospital admission for less than 1 week, and the difference between both groups was significant (p=0.002).

Most patients in the hemiarthroplasty group (56 patients ) were able to start partial weight bearing on the first post-operative day. This contrasted with the observation in the fixation group where 43 patients were able to start partial weight bearing after 15 days (p<0.001).

Most patients who underwent hemiarthroplasty (52 patients) started full weight bearing at the end of the first week postoperatively, while patients who underwent fixation started full weight bearing at 6 to 12 weeks post-operatively (p<0.001).

The mean Harris Hip Score at 12 weeks post-operatively was 77.85 (49-93) for the hemiarthroplasty group and 53.9 (32-81) for the fixation group (p=0.001).

At the final-follow up, which was 13.66 (10-18) months in the hemiarthroplasty group and 12 (10-15) months in the internal fixation group, nine out of the 57 patients who underwent internal fixation had died and seven patients were lost to follow-up. Ten patients developed infection, of whom six had superficial infection, which was managed with debridement and intravenous antibiotics. Four patients had deep infection that necessitated the removal of implants and revision with external fixation. Eight patients had general complications, four had deep venous thrombosis (DVT), and four had bedsores. Seven patients had cut-out and penetration into the acetabulum, and all were later revised with arthroplasty. One patient with PFN had periprosthetic fracture, one had non-union revised with hemiarthroplasty, one had delayed union, four had varus malunion, and two patients ended with medialisation (dynamic hip screw - DHS) (Table II).

 

 

At the final follow-up, ten out of the 60 patients who underwent hemiarthroplasty had died and two were lost to follow-up. Three patients had infections: two had deep infections that necessitated removal of the implants; one was left as a girdle stone and the other revised later after exclusion of the infection; one patient had superficial infection. Two patients had DVT. Five patients had bedsores, three of whom had the bedsores before surgery. Only one patient had dislocation of the hip, which was reduced surgically (Table II).

The mean Harris Hip Score at time of final follow-up was 74.33 (42-96) for the internal fixation group and 91.14 (73-99) for the hemiarthroplasty group (p<0.001).

The re-operation rate was significantly less (p=0.012) in the hemiarthroplasty group; 12 patients in the fixation group, compared to three patients in the hemiarthroplasty group, needed re-operation.

 

Discussion

For several decades, the treatment of choice for unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients has been internal fixation, although several studies have shown mechanical and technical failures.14-16 Surgeons use different fixation modalities, both extramedullary and intramedullary, with the aim of reducing these complications taking into account different biomechanics. However, Reindl et al.17reported no differences in functional outcome between extra- and intramedullary fixation. Other surgeons have recommended prosthetic replacement for the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures because of the improved outcomes noted.9-12,18-23

The present study showed better results with hemiarthroplasty than with internal fixation for the treatment of unstable hip fracture in elderly patients, in terms of clinical and functional outcomes. In this study, the duration of surgery was less in hemiarthroplasty. Huang and Yee24 reported a similar result in their study that compared DHS, proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA), and hemiarthroplasty. Partial and full weight bearing started earlier in the hemiarthroplasty group and this was also observed in other studies by Huang and Yee24 and Kayali et al.25 The latter25 reported full weight bearing at four weeks, while in our series, full weight bearing commenced at the end of the first week. This may be explained by the fact that they used a cone medullary prosthesis, while we used a cemented stem. The hospital stay was also less in the hemiarthroplasty group due to the earlier weight bearing.

In the present study, there was no significant difference in mortality rate and the occurrence of deep venous thrombosis between the hemiarthroplasty and fixation groups. Similar results were noted in other studies.25,27 Kayali et al.25reported a one-year mortality rate of 24% in the hemiarthroplasty group versus 16% in the fixation group. Parker et al.26in their systematic review reported 18 versus 14 cases of mortality in arthroplasty versus fixation respectively; Bonnevialle et al.27reported three-month mortality to be 21% versus 21.2% in both groups. Blood loss was higher in the hemiarthroplasty group, but the difference was non-significant.

The re-operation rate was higher in the internal fixation group, and a study by Bonnevialle et al.27reported similar outcomes. In the fixation group, the cut-out was 12% and was similar to the findings of Kayali et al.25 The mean final Harris Hip Score was significantly higher in the hemiarthroplasty group both at 3 months and at the final follow-up.

The main limitation of this study is the short duration of follow-up. In addition, the cost of the implant and the exposure to radiation, which are important parameters in the overall evaluation of each method, were not included in this study.

In conclusion, the clinical results of hemiarthroplasty seemed superior to those of internal fixation in terms of duration of surgery, early mobilisation, re-operation rate, infection rate, and mechanical complications, although similar outcomes were noted in the one-year mortality rate and DVT.

 

Ethics statement

Ethical approval (SMCT 006/11/14) from the Sudan Medical Specialisation Board research ethics committee was granted before starting this research and informed consent was obtained from all participants.

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

 

References

1. Yang YH, Wang YR, Jiang SD, Jiang LS. Proximal femoral nail antirotation and third-generation gamma nail: which is a better device for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures? Singapore Med J. 2013;54:446-50.         [ Links ]

2. Yoon BH, Lee YK, Kim SH, Ha YC, Koo KH. Epidemiology of proximal femoral fractures in South Korea. Arch Osteoporos. 2013;8:1-5.         [ Links ]

3. Kulkarni GS, Limaye R, Kulkarni M, Kulkarni S. Intertrochanteric fractures. Indian J Orthop. 2006;40:16-23.         [ Links ]

4. Unger AC, Wilde E, Kienast B, Jürgens C, Schulz AP. Treatment of trochanteric fractures with the Gamma3 Nail - methodology and early results of a prospective consecutive monitored clinical case series. Open Orthop J. 2015;9:466-73.         [ Links ]

5. Evans EM. The treatment of trochanteric fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1949;31:190-203.         [ Links ]

6. Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J, Broderick JS, Creevey W, DeCoster TA. Fracture and dislocation classification compendium: Orthopedic Trauma Association Classification, Database and Outcomes Committee. J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21:S1-133.         [ Links ]

7. Huang H, Xin J, Baotong M. Analysis of complications of intertrochanteric fracture treated with Gamma 3 intramedullary nail. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2014;7:3687-93.         [ Links ]

8. Maru N, Sayani K. Unstable intertrochanteric fractures in high risk elderly patients treated by primary bipolar hemiarthroplasty: retrospective case series. Gujarat Med J. 2013;68:68-72.         [ Links ]

9. Tronzo RG. The use of an endoprosthesis for severely comminuted trochanteric fractures. Orthop Clin North Am. 1974;5:679-81.         [ Links ]

10. Harwin SF, Stern RE, Kulick RG. Primary Bateman-Leinbach bipolar prosthetic replacement of the hip in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fracture in the elderly. Orthopedics. 1990;13:1131-36.         [ Links ]

11. Broos PL, Rommens PM, Deleyn PR, Geens VR, Stappaerts KH. Pertrochanteric fractures in the elderly: Are there indications for primary prosthetic replacement? J Orthop Trauma. 1991;5:446-51.         [ Links ]

12. Chan KC, Gill GS. Cemented hemiarthroplasties for elderly patients with intertrochanteric fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;371:206-15.         [ Links ]

13. Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969 Jun;51(4):737-55.         [ Links ]

14. Haynes RC, Poll RG, Miles AW, Weston RB. Failure of femoral head fixation: a cadaveric analysis of lag screw cut-out with the gamma locking nail and AO dynamic hip screw. Injury. 1997;28:337-41.         [ Links ]

15. Wolfgang GL, Bryant MH, O'Neill JP. Treatment of intertrochanteric fracture of the femur using sliding screw plate fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982;163:148-58.         [ Links ]

16. Simpson AH, Varty K, Dodd CAF. Sliding hip screws: Modes of failure. Injury. 1989;20:227-31.         [ Links ]

17. Reindl R, Harvey EJ, Berry GK, Rahme E. Intramedullary vs extramedullary fixation for unstable intertrochanteric fractures: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97:1905-12.         [ Links ]

18. Saoudy EE, Salama AM. Bipolar hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of unstable trochanteric fracture femur in the elderly. Egypt Orthop J. 2016;51:323-18.         [ Links ]

19. Naik LG, Badgire KS, Sharma JM, Qureshi F. Treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures with cemented bipolar prosthesis - A prospective study. Indian J Orthop Surg. 2017;3(1):27-30.         [ Links ]

20. Puttakemparaju KV, Beshaj NR. Unstable intertrochanteric fracture in elderly treated with bipolar hemiarthroplasty: A prospective case series. Afr J Trauma 2014;3(2):81-86.         [ Links ]

21. Chang JD, Kim IS, Lee SS, Yoo JH, Hwang JH. Unstable intertrochanteric versus displaced femoral neck fractures treated with cementless bipolar hemiarthroplasty in elderly patients; a comparison of 80 matched patients. Orthop Traum Surg Res. 2016;102(6):695-99.         [ Links ]

22. Pradeep C, Anuj A, Abhishek G. Treatment of comminuted unstable intertrochanteric fracture in elderly patients with cemented bipolar prosthesis. Indian J Orthop Surg. 2015;1(4):255-60.         [ Links ]

23. Abdelgadir AH, Awadelsied MH, Elbushra EM, Gashi YN. Outcome of cemented bipolar as primary management of comminuted unstable intertrochanteric fracture femur in elderly Sudanese patients. Univers J Public Health. 2016;4:133-38.         [ Links ]

24. Huang CG, Yee JJ. Comparison of three methods for the treatment of aged femoral intertrochanteric fracture. Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2012;25:549-53.         [ Links ]

25. Kayali C, Agus H, Ozluk S, Sanli C. Treatment for unstable intertrochanteric fracture in elderly patients: internal fixation vs. cone hemiarthroplasty. J Orthop Surg. 2006;14:240-44.         [ Links ]

26. Parker MJ, Handoll HH. Replacement arthroplasty versus internal fixation for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;19:CD00086.         [ Links ]

27. Bonnevialle P, Saragaglia D, Ehlinger M, et al. Trochanteric locking nail versus arthroplasty in unstable intertrochanteric fracture in patients aged over 75 years. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011;97:95-100.         [ Links ]

 

 

Correspondence:
Dr Ahmed Siddig Elhadi,
Department of Orthopaedics, Ibrahim Malik Teaching Hospital
Alsahafa East, Khartoum, Sudan
tel: +249913955175 - +249123255175;
email: ahmedsiddig625@yahoo.com

Received: March 2018
Accepted: August 2018
Published: November 2018

 

 

Funding: No funding was received for this study.
Conflict of interest: The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest that are directly or indirectly related to the research.

Creative Commons License All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License