DOCSLIB.ORG

Femoral Shaft Fractures in Adults: Epidemiology, Fracture Patterns, Nonunions, and Fatigue Fractures

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

From the Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, and the Department of Pediatric Surgery, University of Helsinki; and the Research Institute of Military Medicine, Central Military Hospital, Helsinki FEMORAL SHAFT FRACTURES IN ADULTS: EPIDEMIOLOGY, FRACTURE PATTERNS, NONUNIONS, AND FATIGUE FRACTURES A clinical study Sari Salminen Academic dissertation To be presented with the permission of The Faculty of Medicine of the University of Helsinki, for public discussion in the Auditorium of the Töölö Hospital, Helsinki University Central Hospital, on June 29th, 2005, at 12 o’clock noon. Helsinki 2005 Supervised by Docent Ole Böstman, M.D., Ph.D. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology Helsinki University Central Hospital Helsinki, Finland Docent Harri Pihlajamäki, M.D., Ph.D. Department of Surgery and Research Institute of Military Medicine Central Military Hospital Helsinki, Finland Reviewed by Docent Matti U.K. Lehto, M.D., Ph.D. Coxa, Hospital for Joint Replacement Tampere, Finland Professor Erkki Tukiainen, M.D., Ph.D. Department of Plastic Surgery Helsinki University Central Hospital Helsinki, Finland To be discussed with Professor Heikki Kröger, M.D., Ph.D. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology Kuopio University Hospital Kuopio, Finland ISBN 952-91-8891-9 (bound) ISBN 952-10-2523-9 (PDF) Helsinki University Printing House Helsinki 2005 To my family 4 CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................... 7 LIST OF ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS..................................................................... 8 ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... 9 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 11 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE......................................................................... 13 2.1. Definition of the femoral shaft .................................................................... 13 2.2. Anatomy of the femoral shaft ...................................................................... 13 2.3. Biomechanics of long bone fractures ........................................................... 17 2.4. Fracture healing, delayed union and nonunion of diaphyseal bone .............. 21 2.5. Classifications of femoral shaft fractures in adults ...................................... 22 2.6. Fracture mechanisms and injuries causing traumatic femoral shaft fractures ....................................................................................................... 24 2.7. Etiology of fatigue fractures of the femoral shaft ........................................ 26 2.8. Demography and incidence of femoral shaft fractures................................ 29 2.9. Location, morphology, and soft-tissue injuries of femoral shaft fractures ..... 32 2.10. Concomitant injuries associated with femoral shaft fractures ................... 35 2.11. Diagnosis and treatment of femoral shaft fractures ................................... 38 2.11.1. Clinical course ............................................................................... 38 2.11.2. Radiographic findings .................................................................... 39 2.12. Treatment of femoral shaft fractures in adults .......................................... 40 2.12.1. Development of conservative treatment of femoral shaft fractures ........................................................................................ 40 2.12.2. Traction ......................................................................................... 40 2.12.3. Cast bracing .................................................................................. 41 2.12.4. Development of operative treatment of femoral shaft fractures ... 42 2.12.5. Plate fixation .................................................................................. 45 2.12.6. External fixation ............................................................................ 45 2.12.7. Intramedullary nailing .................................................................... 46 2.12.7.1. Principle of intramedullary nailing ................................. 46 2.12.7.2. Technique of intramedullary nailing and aftertreatment .. 51 2.13. Outcome and complications of the treatment of femoral shaft fractures ..... 54 2.13.1. Fracture union ............................................................................... 54 2.13.2. Complications ................................................................................ 55 3. AIMS OF THE PRESENT STUDY ...................................................................... 65 4. PATIENTS AND METHODS ............................................................................... 66 4.1. Definitions used in the study (I, II, III, IV) ................................................. 66 4.2. Patient data (I, II, III, IV) ............................................................................ 68 5 4.3. Study arrangement (I, II, III, IV) ................................................................ 69 4.4. Fracture management (II, III, IV) ............................................................... 70 4.5. Follow-up time (II, II, IV) ........................................................................... 72 4.6. Statistical methods (I, II, III, IV) ................................................................ 72 5. RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 73 5.1. Demography of femoral shaft fractures in adults (I, II, III) ....................... 73 5.2. Injury mechanism (I, II, IV) or activity during fracture onset (III) ............ 75 5.3. Concomitant injuries (I, II, III, IV).............................................................. 79 5.4. Fracture characteristics (I, II, III, IV) ........................................................ 79 5.5. Outcome and complications of fracture treatment (II, III, IV) ................... 84 6. GENERAL DISCUSSION .................................................................................... 100 6.1. Incidence of femoral shaft fractures............................................................ 100 6.2. Injury season and injury mechanisms of femoral shaft fractures in adults .... 103 6.3. Concomitant injuries related to femoral shaft fractures in adults................. 103 6.4. Morphology of femoral shaft fractures in adults ......................................... 104 6.5. Treatment, outcome, and complications of femoral shaft fractures in adults ............................................................................................................. 105 6.6. Prevention of femoral shaft fractures .......................................................... 108 7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................... 109 7.1. Demography of femoral shaft fractures in adults ....................................... 109 7.2. Morphology of femoral shaft fractures in adults ......................................... 109 7.3. Treatment of femoral shaft fractures and nonunions in adults .................... 110 7.4. Prevention of femoral shaft fractures in adults ............................................ 110 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................ 113 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 115 ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS .................................................................................... 147 6 ABSTRACT The femur (thigh bone) is the longest, strongest, largest and heaviest tubular bone in the human body, and one of the principal load-bearing bones in the lower extremity. Femoral shaft fractures are among the most common major injuries that an orthopaedic surgeon will be required to treat. Although demographic data of the patients have been analyzed in some epidemiologic studies, little attention has been paid to the characterization of the fracture patterns of femoral shaft fractures using morphologic classification systems. Femoral shaft fractures are commonly thought to be primarily associated with severe trauma in young persons. Low energy violence as a cause of these fractures, especially among the elderly, has been mentioned only sporadically in epidemiologic studies. Anoth- er subgroup of operatively treated femoral shaft fractures are displaced fatigue fractures of the femoral diaphysis, which mainly occur among military trainees. The concept of intramedullary fixation in the treatment of femoral shaft fractures has gained wide acceptance. Delayed union or nonunion following intramedullary nailing of the femur has been considered an infrequent clinical problem. As a consequence of the more frequent use of intramedullary nailing for the treatment of femoral shaft fractures, an increasing number of orthopaedic surgeons will be confronted with this complication. The present study shows that femoral shaft fractures in adults are not exclusively the result of high energy trauma. Low energy trauma can cause 25% of the fractures. Fem- oral shaft fractures caused by low energy violence mainly occur in patients suffering from a chronic disease or a condition causing osteopenia of the femur. In displaced femoral shaft fatigue fractures, regardless of the symptoms, the diagnosis can be delayed
Recommended publications
  • Femoral Shaft Fractures Andrew Chen, MD University of North Carolina

    Femoral Shaft Fractures Andrew Chen, MD University of North Carolina

    Femoral Shaft Fractures Andrew Chen, MD University of North Carolina Core Curriculum V5 Disclosure All figures belong to Andrew Chen, MD unless otherwise indicated Core Curriculum V5 Objectives • Review initial management of femoral shaft fractures and possible concomitant injuries • Discuss multiple options with intramedullary nailing • Antegrade/retrograde • Starting point • Reaming • Patient positioning • Understand commonly associated complications Core Curriculum V5 Femoral Shaft Fractures • Bimodal distribution • Young patients after high-energy trauma • Elderly patients after falls from standing secondary to osteopenia/osteoporosis • MVC, MCC, pedestrian struck, fall from height, and gunshot wounds most common mechanisms • Intramedullary nail as “gold standard” treatment, which has continued to evolve since introduction by Gerhard Küntscher around World War II Core Curriculum V5 Anatomy • Largest and strongest bone in body • Anterior bow with radius of curvature ~120 cm1 • Blood supply from primary nutrient vessel through linea aspera and small periosteal vessels • Deformity pattern dependent on attached musculature • Proximal fragment • Flexed (gluteus medius/minimus on greater trochanter) • Abducted (iliopsoas on lesser trochanter) • Distal fragment • Varus (adductors inserting on medial aspect distal femur) • Extension (gastrocnemius attaching on distal aspect of posterior femur) Courtesy of Rockwood and Green’s Fracture in Adults2 Core Curriculum V5 Femur Fracture Classification: AO/OTA • Bone Segment 32 • Type A • Simple •
  • Rare Combination of Ipsilateral Acetabular Fracture-Dislocation and Pertrochanteric Fracture

    Rare Combination of Ipsilateral Acetabular Fracture-Dislocation and Pertrochanteric Fracture

    A Case Report & Literature Review Rare Combination of Ipsilateral Acetabular Fracture-Dislocation and Pertrochanteric Fracture Kevin M. Kuhn, CDR, MC, USN, John A. Boudreau, MD, and J. Tracy Watson, MD oral fractures. Other case reports have described acetabular Abstract fracture-dislocations associated with femoral neck fractures.1-3 Acetabular fracture-dislocations are severe This case report describes an acetabular fracture-dislocation injuries that require urgent closed reduction associated with an ipsilateral pertrochanteric fracture and sub- of the hip and often require surgery to restore trochanteric extension. hip stability. Other authors have described We propose a staged treatment strategy consisting of early acetabular fracture-dislocations associated minimally invasive reduction of the hip and delayed reduction with femoral neck fractures, but to our knowl- and fixation of the fractures. This strategy may be useful in edge, this case report is the first to describe an managing a polytraumatized patient who may not be stable acetabular fracture-dislocation in association enough to undergo early definitive management, or a patient with an ipsilateral pertrochanteric fracture and who requires prolonged transfer to receive definitive care. subtrochanteric extension. The patient provided written informed consent for print The polytraumatized patient initially was not and electronic publication of this case report. stable enough for prolonged surgery. Through a 3-cm anterolateral hip incision, a 5-mmAJO Schanz Case Report screw was introduced percutaneously into the A 44-year-old man was involved in a head-on motor vehicle femoral head through the primary fracture site collision at highway speed. He was taken to a local hospital, under fluoroscopic guidance.
  • Treatment of Common Hip Fractures: Evidence Report/Technology

    Treatment of Common Hip Fractures: Evidence Report/Technology

    This report is based on research conducted by the Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. HHSA 290 2007 10064 1). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its content, and do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. No statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The information in this report is intended to help clinicians, employers, policymakers, and others make informed decisions about the provision of health care services. This report is intended as a reference and not as a substitute for clinical judgment. This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for the development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment Number 184 Treatment of Common Hip Fractures Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 540 Gaither Road Rockville, MD 20850 www.ahrq.gov Contract No. HHSA 290 2007 10064 1 Prepared by: Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota Investigators Mary Butler, Ph.D., M.B.A. Mary Forte, D.C. Robert L. Kane, M.D. Siddharth Joglekar, M.D. Susan J. Duval, Ph.D. Marc Swiontkowski, M.D.
  • Femoral Shaft Fracture Fixation and Chest Injury After Polytrauma

    Femoral Shaft Fracture Fixation and Chest Injury After Polytrauma

    This is an enhanced PDF from The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery The PDF of the article you requested follows this cover page. Femoral Shaft Fracture Fixation and Chest Injury After Polytrauma Lawrence B. Bone and Peter Giannoudis J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93:311-317. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.00334 This information is current as of January 25, 2011 Reprints and Permissions Click here to order reprints or request permission to use material from this article, or locate the article citation on jbjs.org and click on the [Reprints and Permissions] link. Publisher Information The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 20 Pickering Street, Needham, MA 02492-3157 www.jbjs.org 311 COPYRIGHT Ó 2011 BY THE JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY,INCORPORATED Current Concepts Review Femoral Shaft Fracture Fixation and Chest Injury After Polytrauma By Lawrence B. Bone, MD, and Peter Giannoudis, MD, FRCS Thirty years ago, the standard of care for the multiply injured tients with multiple injuries, defined as an ISS of ‡18, and patient with fractures was placement of the fractured limb in a patients with essentially an isolated femoral fracture and an splint or skeletal traction, until the patient was considered stable ISS of <18. Pulmonary complications consisting of ARDS, enough to undergo surgery for fracture fixation1. This led to a pulmonary dysfunction, fat emboli, pulmonary emboli, and number of complications2, such as adult respiratory distress pneumonia were present in 38% (fourteen) of thirty-seven syndrome (ARDS), infection, pneumonia, malunion, non- patients in the late fixation/multiple injuries group and 4% union, and death, particularly when the patient had a high (two) of forty-six in the early fixation/multiple injuries group; Injury Severity Score (ISS)3.
  • Pulmonary Dysfunction in Patients with Femoral Shaft Fracture Treated with Intramedullary Nailing by BRENT L

    Pulmonary Dysfunction in Patients with Femoral Shaft Fracture Treated with Intramedullary Nailing by BRENT L

    COPYRIGHT © 2001 BY THE JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY, INCORPORATED Pulmonary Dysfunction in Patients with Femoral Shaft Fracture Treated with Intramedullary Nailing BY BRENT L. NORRIS, MD, W. CHRISTOPHER PATTON, MD, JOSEPH N. RUDD JR., BSN, PHD, COLLEEN M. SCHMITT, MD, MHS, AND JEFFREY A. KLINE, MD Investigation performed at the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, Chattanooga, Tennessee, and the Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina Background: This study was undertaken to determine whether alveolar dead space increases during intramedul- lary nailing of femoral shaft fractures and whether alveolar dead space predicts postoperative pulmonary dysfunc- tion in patients undergoing intramedullary nailing of a femoral shaft fracture. Methods: All patients with a femoral shaft fracture were prospectively enrolled in the study unless there was evi- dence of acute myocardial infarction, shock, or heart failure. Arterial blood gases were measured at three consec- utive time-periods after induction of general anesthesia: before intramedullary nailing and ten and thirty minutes after intramedullary nailing. The end-tidal carbon-dioxide level, minute ventilation, positive end-expiratory pres- sure, and percent of inspired and expired inhalation agent were recorded simultaneously with the blood-gas mea- surement. Postoperatively, all subjects were monitored for evidence of pulmonary dysfunction, defined as the need for mechanical ventilation or supplemental oxygen (at a fraction of inspired oxygen of >40%) in the presence of clinical signs of a respiratory rate of >20 breaths/min or the use of accessory muscles of respiration. Results: Seventy-four patients with a total of eighty femoral shaft fractures completed the study. Fifty fractures (62.5%) underwent nailing after reaming, and thirty fractures (37.5%) underwent nailing with minimal or no ream- ing.
  • A Rare Knee Fracture with Underestimated Severity

    A Rare Knee Fracture with Underestimated Severity

    IMAGES IN EMERGENCY MEDICINE A Rare Knee Fracture with Underestimated Severity Shinsuke Takeda, MD*† *Anjo Kosei Hospital, Emergency and Critical Care Center, Anjo, Japan Katsuyuki Iwatsuki, MD, PhD† †Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Department of Hand Surgery, Akihiko Tabuchi, MD* Nagoya, Japan Sadahiro Kubo, MD* Satoshi Teranishi, MD* Hitoshi Hirata, MD, PhD† Section Editor: Rick A McPheeters, DO Submission history: Submitted April 28, 2018; Revision received July 4, 2018; Accepted July 6, 2018 Electronically published August 15, 2018 Full text available through open access at http://escholarship.org/uc/uciem_cpcem DOI: 10.5811/cpcem.2018.7.38817 [Clin Pract Cases Emerg Med. 2018;2(4):367–368.] CASE PRESENTATION A 13-year-old girl presented to the emergency department (ED) after her right knee was forced into valgus after making contact with the opposing goalkeeper while playing soccer. At the scene, she had experienced immediate severe knee pain and was unable to bear weight. Anteroposterior radiographs of the knee revealed a minimally displaced fracture to the lateral femoral condyle (Image 1). Computed tomography (CT) revealed injury of the distal femoral epiphyseal growth plate (Salter- Harris type 4), and the point near the epiphyseal closing was tender in the patient (Image 2). Three-dimensional CTs are useful in delineating the coronal shear component (Image 3). Knee arthroscopy revealed severe complications including posterior cruciate ligament ruptures, medial collateral ligament injury, and Image 1. Anteroposterior a) and lateral b) radiograph show longitudinal tear of the lateral meniscus anterior horn, in addition the injured knee with a minimal fracture of the lateral femoral condyle (arrow).
  • 2018 Abstracts 06-01-18 Pk

    2018 Abstracts 06-01-18 Pk

    MID-AMERICA ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATION 36th Annual Meeting April 18-22, 2018 Hyatt Regency Hill Country Resort San Antonio, TX Podium and Poster Abstracts NOTE: Disclosure information is listed at the end of this document. *Denotes presenter MAOA FIRST PLENARY SESSION April 18, 2018 Is the Prevalence of Ulnar Artery Thrombosis Higher in Orthopedic Surgeons? Abstract ID: Paper 001 *Chelsea S. Mathews, M.D. / Little Rock, AR Karan D. Dua, M.D. / Baltimore, MD Austin A. Cole / Little Rock, AR Eric R. Siegel, M.S. / Little Rock, AR Joshua M. Abzug, M.D. / Baltimore, MD Theresa O. Wyrick, M.D. / Little Rock, AR INTRODUCTION: Ulnar artery thrombosis (UAT), or hypothenar hammer syndrome, has strong correlations with individuals involved in manual labor and various athletic professions. Activities that produce a persistent impact on the hypothenar eminence can damage blood vessels of the hand, specifically the ulnar artery as it passes through Guyon’s canal. To our knowledge, the prevalence of these symptoms residing in orthopedic surgeons is unknown. We hypothesized that orthopedic surgeons would have an increased prevalence of UAT than the general population and that this would be true of surgeons who perform a large volume of hip and knee arthroplasty due to frequent use of oscillating saws and methods of retractor placement. METHODS: 80 current, retired, and resident orthopedic surgeons at two separate institutions were surveyed for symptoms of ulnar artery thrombosis (UAT). Participants completed surveys indicating symptoms of UAT and participation in leisurely activities that may also increase their risk. A timed Allen’s test was performed with the radial artery occluded and the time to reperfusion of the hand was measured.
  • The Orthopaedic Management of Long Bone Deformities in Genetically and Acquired Generalized Bone Weakening Conditions

    The Orthopaedic Management of Long Bone Deformities in Genetically and Acquired Generalized Bone Weakening Conditions

    Current Concepts Review The orthopaedic management of long bone deformities in genetically and acquired generalized bone weakening conditions T. Wirth Keywords: osteogenesis imperfecta; fibrous dysplasia; hypophosphataemic rickets; bone deformity Abstract Purpose Diseases such as osteogenesis imperfecta, fibrous Introduction dysplasia, hypophosphataemic rickets and others lead to soft A variety of congenital and acquired conditions lead to and weak bones and long bone deformity in affected patients. a localized or general bone weakness which may result As a consequence, these patients lose their walking capacity in more or less severe long bone deformities. The most and functional abilities of the upper extremities as well. important and most frequent diseases are hypophos- Methods In combination with bisphosphonate treatment phataemic rickets, fibrous dysplasia and osteogenesis and physical rehabilitation programmes surgical interven- imperfecta (OI) representing examples of genetically tions are being applied to correct and stabilize the deformed determined entities and rickets and osteopenia due to and less mechanically resistant long bones. Intramedullary malabsorption syndromes as typical causes of acquired devices, ideally with an elongating telescopic mechanism, diseases (Table 1).1,2 have proven to be the most suitable implants. All these bone weakening conditions are subject to a higher fracture rate, mainly from low energy and inad- Results The surgical correction and stabilization of deformed equate injuries, and to gradual development of bone bones in weak bone diseases is very beneficial to the patients. deformities. The muscular forces generated along the Pain restriction, reduction of fracture events, minimization of upper and lower limbs’ long bones are stronger than consequences of traumatic events and falls have resulted in the biomechanically transmitted tensile strengths of the a significant functional improvement.
  • (Fractures of the Shaft of the Humerus) with Animated Surgical Video

    (Fractures of the Shaft of the Humerus) with Animated Surgical Video

    A Patient’s Guide to Upper Arm Fractures (Fractures of the Shaft of the Humerus) with Animated Surgical Video Introduction Upper arm fractures encompassing the humeral shaft are common breaks of the human skeleton. Although fractures the clavicle (collarbone) and proximal portion of the humerus are more common, humeral shaft fractures occur in frequency and may be associated with pain and deformity. Fortunately, most fractures of the humeral shaft respond to treatment without surgery. Anatomy The shoulder serves as a connection between the chest and arm. The clavicle functions as a strut connected to the shoulder bone (scapula). The scapula articulates with the humerus and accounts for approximately 70% of shoulder motion (the remaining motion occurs between the scapula and the thorax). Your shoulder is made up of three bones: your upper arm bone (humerus), your shoulder blade (scapula), and your collarbone (clavicle). A right shoulder viewed from the front showing the clavicle, humerus and scapula. The elbow serves two distinct functions: 1) to bend and straighten 2) to turn the palm up and palm down. The elbow utilizes three bones in articulation to accomplish these purposes—humerus, ulna, and radius. Lateral view of a right elbow demonstrating humerus, ulna, and radius Connecting the shoulder and elbow is the humeral shaft. The humeral shaft is a long tubular bone, which is hallow on the inside (medullary canal). This bone is strong, especially in younger individuals, but with aging associated with bone weakening (osteoporosis) it may become less resilient and prone to fracture. A right shoulder from the front (anterior) and back (posterior).
  • Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria (Re-Formatted May 2013 Final Version Distributed 5 December 2013)

    Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria (Re-Formatted May 2013 Final Version Distributed 5 December 2013)

    Scottish Trauma Audit Group (STAG) Inclusion/Exclusion criteria (Re-formatted May 2013 Final version distributed 5 December 2013) The decision to include a patient should be based on the following points : A. ALL TRAUMA PATIENTS AGED 13 AND OVER B. WHO FULFILL THE FOLLOWING LENGTH OF STAY CRITERIA DIRECT ADMISSIONS TRANSFERRED PATIENTS (IN/OUT) Trauma admissions whose length of stay Trauma patients transferred in/out of ED for is at least 3 days or more specialist care whose combined hospital stay at e.g. both sites is 3 days or more into ED 18 th discharged 21 st (include) into ED 18 th discharged 20 th (exclude) OR Trauma patients who die in hospital within 3 days of attendance (do not include patients who enter ED with no recordable obs and declared dead within 15 mins) OR Trauma patients managed in Resus who meet inclusion criteria C. AND WHOSE INJURIES MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: BODY REGION OR INCLUDED EXCLUDED SPECIFIC INJURY HEAD All brain or skull injuries Isolated minor head injury (no fracture and GCS>13) FACE Fractures documented as Fractures documented as simple or significant displacement, open, stable. compound or comminuted. All - Lefort fractures panfacial fractures Orbital Blowout fractures THORAX All patients Isolated superficial lacerations, contusions, puncture wounds/bites with no underlying injury. ABDOMEN All patients Isolated superficial lacerations, contusions, puncture wounds/bites with no underlying injury. SPINE All None PELVIS All Isolated pubic rami fracture in ≥65 years old FEMORAL FRACTURE All (open or closed) Subtrochenteric fracture treated as a hip fracture. /.. Revised format circulated 23 May 2013 Updated by LH 5 December 2013 Filed: STAG Trauma//Active/Training/AUDIT GUIDELINES / BODY REGION OR INCLUDED EXCLUDED SPECIFIC INJURY HIP FRACTURE or PUBIC All ≥65 years with hip fracture OR pubic RAMI FRACTURE rami fracture with one other isolated injury.
  • ACR Appropriateness Criteria Acute Hip Pain-Suspected Fracture

    ACR Appropriateness Criteria Acute Hip Pain-Suspected Fracture

    Revised 2018 American College of Radiology ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Acute Hip Pain-Suspected Fracture Variant 1: Acute hip pain. Fall or minor trauma. Suspect fracture. Initial imaging. Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level Radiography hip Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢ Radiography pelvis Usually Appropriate ☢☢ Radiography pelvis and hips Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢ CT pelvis and hips with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢ CT pelvis and hips without and with IV Usually Not Appropriate contrast ☢☢☢☢ CT pelvis and hips without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢ MRI pelvis and affected hip without and Usually Not Appropriate with IV contrast O MRI pelvis and affected hip without IV Usually Not Appropriate contrast O Bone scan hips Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢ US hip Usually Not Appropriate O Variant 2: Acute hip pain. Fall or minor trauma. Negative radiographs. Suspect fracture. Next imaging study. Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level MRI pelvis and affected hip without IV Usually Appropriate contrast O CT pelvis and hips without IV contrast Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢ CT pelvis and hips with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢ CT pelvis and hips without and with IV Usually Not Appropriate contrast ☢☢☢☢ MRI pelvis and affected hip without and with Usually Not Appropriate IV contrast O Bone scan hips Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢ US hip Usually Not Appropriate O ACR Appropriateness Criteria® 1 Acute Hip Pain-Suspected Fracture Acute Hip Pain-Suspected Fracture Expert Panel on Musculoskeletal Imaging: Andrew B. Ross, MD, MPHa; Kenneth S. Lee, MD, MBAb; Eric Y. Chang, MDc; Behrang Amini, MD, PhDd; Jennifer K. Bussell, MDe; Tetyana Gorbachova, MDf; Alice S. Ha, MDg; Bharti Khurana, MDh; Alan Klitzke, MDi; Pekka A.
  • Intra-Articular Corrective Osteotomy for Malunited Hoffa Fracture: a Case Report Takao Iwai1, Masayuki Hamada1*, Takahide Miyama1 and Konsei Shino2

    Intra-Articular Corrective Osteotomy for Malunited Hoffa Fracture: a Case Report Takao Iwai1, Masayuki Hamada1*, Takahide Miyama1 and Konsei Shino2

    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Springer - Publisher Connector Iwai et al. Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, Rehabilitation, Therapy & Technology 2012, 4:28 http://www.smarttjournal.com/content/4/1/28 CASE REPORT Open Access Intra-articular corrective osteotomy for malunited Hoffa fracture: A case report Takao Iwai1, Masayuki Hamada1*, Takahide Miyama1 and Konsei Shino2 Abstract Hoffa fracture, an isolated coronal plane fracture of the posterior aspect of the femoral condyle, is known as an unstable, intra-articular fracture, and therefore, operative treatment is recommended. However, insufficient open reduction or failure of fixation may lead to malunion. We performed intra-articular corrective osteotomy for a malunited Hoffa fracture in a 31-year-old man and obtained good functional and radiographic results. This report suggests that intra-articular corrective osteotomy for malunited Hoffa fracture offers a good outcome and should be considered as salvage treatment. Keywords: Hoffa fracture, Malunion, Intra-articular corrective osteotomy Background fixation using 3 screws at a different hospital. The frac- Hoffa described isolated coronal plane fracture of the ture was type I according to the Letenneur classification posterior aspect of the femoral condyle in 1904 [1]. [3]. At 2 months postoperatively, the range of motion The so-called Hoffa fracture is, by definition, an intra- was 0°/full extension to 40° of flexion, and manipulation articular fracture and has been reported to more com- of the knee joint was performed under anesthesia. At monly involve the lateral condyle [2]. Because this 4 months postoperatively, he was referred to our hos- fracture is known as an unstable, intra-articular fracture, pital for further treatment.