Abstract
Purpose
To study the management and evaluate anatomical and functional outcomes of patients with ipsilateral proximal and shaft femoral fractures.
Methods
A retrospective, descriptive and analytic study lasted for ten years and a half ranging from January 1, 2005 to June 30, 2015. The following parameters were studied: epidemiology, fracture characteristics, therapeutic, anatomical and functional outcomes. The correlation between different parameters was analyzed with Fischer test. The significant threshold was defined for p value <0.05.
Results
Ten medical files were registered. There were 7 men and 3 women, with a sex ratio of 2.33. The average age was 46 years (range: 29–62 years). It was about traffic road accidents in all cases. Motorcycle–motorcycle and motorcycle–car collision were most frequent. Average admission delay was 7 h (range: 1.5–24 h). Left side was most reached in 8 cases. According to Garden classification, there was type III cervical fracture in 2 cases, type II in 1 case and type IV in 1 case. According to Ender classification, there was type I trochanteric fracture in 3 cases, type VI in 2 cases and type VII in 1 case. According to AO classification, there was type A shaft fracture in 6 cases (A2 in 4 cases and A3 in 2 cases), type B in 2 cases (B1 in 1 case and B2 in 1 case) and type C in 2 cases (C1 in 1 case and C2 in 1 case). Average surgical delay was 28.7 days (range: 11–61 days). For proximal femoral fracture, Moore prosthesis was used in 1 case, blade plate 130° in 2 cases, long Gamma nail in 4 cases, double screwing in 2 cases and dynamic hip screw in 1 case. For shaft femoral fracture, blade plate 95° was used in 3 cases, low compressive plate in 2 cases. Osseous contention was achieved in 4 cases with long Gamma nail and in 1 case with long blade plate 130°. Nonunion of cervical fracture was achieved in 2 cases. The average osseous healing delay was 5.14 months (range: 3–12 months) for proximal femoral fracture and 5 months (range: 3–8 months) for shaft femoral fractures. According to Friedman and Wyman criteria, functional results were good in 4 cases, average in 4 cases and bad in 2 cases. Regarding implants, healing delay showed no statistic difference between one-implant group and two-implant group (p = 0.52), and among the patients with different functional outcomes (p = 0.52). Functional outcomes showed no statistic difference between one-implant group and two-implant group (p = 0.46).
Conclusion
Ipsilateral proximal and shaft femoral fractures are relatively uncommon in our daily activities. It is difficult to recognize proximal femoral fractures which are unnoticed. Results are generally good if the doctors take the two fractures into account in the management.
Keywords: Femoral fractures, Proximal fractures, Shaft fractures
Introduction
Ipsilateral proximal and shaft femoral fractures are uncommon, accounting for 2.5%–6% of femoral fractures.1, 2 These injuries often result from high energy mechanism after a motorcycle–car collision in traffic road accidents or falling from height.3, 4, 5 Moreover, the questions about management, therapeutical difficulty concerning implants choice, order of injury management and time of surgical management are unknown. The aim of this work was to study surgical management and evaluate anatomical and functional outcomes of patients with ipsilateral proximal and shaft femoral fractures.
Materials and methods
It was about a retrospective descriptive and analytic study for 10.5 years ranging from 1st January 2005 to 30th June 2015. We included all the medical files of patients with both conditions: patients treated in our department and evaluated in mid-term follow-up. The following parameters were studied: age, sex, circumstances, type of collision, admission delay, side reached, cervical fracture distribution according to Garden classification, trochanteric fracture distribution according to Ender classification, shaft femoral fracture distribution according to AO classification; surgical management delay, osteosynthesis material, complications, osseous healing delay and functional results according to Friedman and Wyman criteria (Table 1).6 The data collected were treated with Excel logiciel. The correlation between different parameters was analyzed with Fischer test. The significant threshold was defined for p value < 0.05.
Table 1.
Friedman and Wyman criteria.
| Grade | Perturbation of daily activity | Pain | Lost of motion of hip or knee |
|---|---|---|---|
| Good | No perturbations | None | <20% |
| Average | Average | Average to moderate | 20%–50% |
| Fair | Moderate | Severe | >50% |
Results
During the study period, 10 cases of ipsilateral proximal and shaft femoral fractures were registered. There were 7 men and 3 women, with the sex ratio of 2.33. The average age of patients was 46 years (range: 29–62 years). It was about traffic road accidents in all cases. Motorcycle–motorcycle collision and motorcycle–car collision were the most frequent in 4 cases respectively, followed by car–car collision in 2 cases. The average admission delay was 7 h (range: 1.5–24 h). The left side was the most reached in 8 cases.
According to Garden classification, there was type III cervical fracture in 2 cases, type II in 1 case and type IV in 1 case. According to Ender classification, there was type I trochanteric fracture in 3 cases, type IV in 2 cases and type VII in 1 case. According to AO classification, there was type A shaft femoral fracture in 6 cases (A2 in 4 cases and A3 in 2 cases), type B in 2 cases (B1 in 1 case and B2 in 1 case) and type C in 2 cases (C1 in 1 case and C2 in 1 case).
The average surgical delay was 28.7 days (range: 11–61 days). The majority of our patients (6 in 10) were operated within 11–30 days after admission.
In our series, 5 patients were operated with one implant for the 2 fractures and the other 5 received two implants. For proximal femoral fracture, Moore prothesis was used in 1 case, blade plate 130° in 2 cases (long blade plate was used in one case), long Gamma nail in 4 cases, a double screwing in 2 cases and a dynamic hip screw in 1 case. For femoral shaft fracture, blade plate 95° was used in 3 cases, and low compressive plate in 2 cases. The long Gamma nail was used for femoral shaft fracture in 4 cases and the long blade plate 130° in 1 case. Two cervical fractures evolved to nonunion. The average osseous healing delay for proximal femoral fracture was 5.14 months (range: 3–12 months). The average osseous healing delay for shaft femoral fracture was 5 months (range: 3–8 months). The average follow-up was 43.5 months (range: 6–108 months). According to Friedman and Wyman criteria, functional results were good in 4 cases, average in 4 cases and bad in 2 cases. Table 2 shows the distribution of osseous healing delay according to number of implants used.
Table 2.
Distribution of osseous healing delay according to number of used implants.
| Number of implants | Cases | Osseous healing delay (months) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 8 | ||
| 1 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| 2 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
Note: x2 = 5.2, p = 0.3.
Three patients treated surgically with one implant healed in 5 months. In the 4 patients treated surgically with 2 implants, 2 healed in 4 months and 2 healed in 5 months, indicating no significant difference (p = 0.3). Good and average functional results were achieved in 5 cases in one-implant group and in 3 cases in two-implant group. Bad functional results were achieved in 1 case in two-implant group. Difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.46). Table 3 shows the distribution of osseous healing delay according to functional results. The good functional results were achieved in 3 patients including 2 who healed in 4 months. The average results were achieved in 5 patients including 3 who healed in 5 months. Bad results were achieved in 2 patients who healed in 5 months and 6 months respectively. The difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.2). Table 4 shows the detailed information of 10 patients.
Table 3.
Distribution of osseous healing delay according to functional results.
| Functional results | Cases | Osseous healing delay (months) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 8 | ||
| Good | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Average | 5 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| Bad | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Note: x2 = 10.9, p = 0.2.
Table 4.
The detailed information of 10 patients.
| No. | Age (years) | Sex | Proximal fracture | Shaft fracture | Collision | Implant for proximal fracture | Implant for shaft fracture | Follow-up (month) | Functional results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 29 | Male | End 1 | 32A3 | Car–car | Blade plate 130° | Long compressive plate | 107 | Bad |
| 2 | 35 | Male | Gard III | 32A2 | Moto–moto | Moore prosthesis | Blade plate 95° | 13 | Average |
| 3 | 41 | Male | End 1 | 32A2 | Moto–moto | Long blade plate 130° | – | 108 | Average |
| 4 | 43 | Male | End 6 | 32A2 | Moto–car | Long Gamma nail | – | 15 | Good |
| 5 | 44 | Female | Gard II | 32C1 | Moto–car | Double screwing | Blade plate 130° | 96 | Good |
| 6 | 44 | Female | Gard IV | 32A3 | Moto–car | Dynamic hip screw | Blade plate 95° | 15 | Good |
| 7 | 51 | Female | End 6 | 32B2 | Car–car | Long Gamma nail | – | 6 | Average |
| 8 | 53 | Male | Gard III | 32A2 | Moto–car | Long Gamma nail | – | 13 | Good |
| 9 | 57 | Male | End 7 | 32B1 | Moto–moto | Long Gamma nail | – | 6 | Average |
| 10 | 62 | Male | End 1 | 32C2 | Moto–car | Double screwing | Long compressive plate | 56 | Bad |
Note: The cases No. 3, 7 and 10 had associated injuries while case No. 5 had Gustillo II injury.
Discussion
Ipsilateral proximal and shaft femoral fractures are a challenge for orthopaedic surgeons.7 The rarity of this injured entity is linked to necessity of high energy trauma in which forces should be applied longitudinally to the femoral shaft. They can be the result of longitudinal compression on hip in flexion and abduction occurring after traffic road accidents in car collision.
The diagnosis of proximal femoral fracture is delayed in 20%–50% of cases.2, 8, 9 Patients have a high Injury Severity Score (ISS) and several other injuries associated to shaft femoral fracture, leading to the ignorance of proximal femoral fracture.9, 10
An early recognition allows stabilization and decreases risk of nonunion and avascular necrosis.11 Failure of recognizing cervical fracture before surgical management of shaft fracture can lead to cervical fracture displacement, limiting cervical fixation choice.12 In our series, circumstances were traffic road accidents in all patients, similar to those of literature.5, 13, 14 This is explained by the importance of energy necessary to generate this injury. Male predominance was found in literature.5, 11, 13, 15 In our study, this was due to the professions like motorcycle drivers, and the fact that men worked in mobility and the most common means of transport was motorcycles. The average age was 46 years old. It was higher than that of Abalo et al5 in Lomé, similar to those of Wang et al13 in Xijing, and Vidyadhara et al9 in Manipal.
The average admission delay was 7 h, due to lack of national rescue system for injured persons other than firemen. Family members had to organize patient transfer. Average delay of surgical management was 28.7 days, due to the lack of universal medical insurance system. Each patient was obliged to find financial support for his management. The associated injuries need a therapeutic approach, different from that of each injury taken separately.11 More than 64 operation strategies had been described for the management.9, 16, 17 Even if it was admitted on that day and the indication was surgical for stabilization of the two fractures, there was still no consensus on the method of fixation for each injury. In our series, there was also multiplicity of therapeutic means. Conventional treatments were screwing, dynamic hip screw, Moore prothesis, dynamic compressive plate, blade plate and Gamma nail. Surgical delay was long in our study since recommendations in literature indicated cervical fixation which varied from one day to a week.16, 17 Most authors recommended a prompt management with priority given to reduction and stabilization of cervical fracture.1, 3, 4, 10, 16, 18, 19 Someone advocated giving shaft fixation firstly so that reducing proximal fracture would be easier.20, 21, 22 In all cases, the conditions of the patients, associated injuries and hemodynamic status should be taken into account in determining when to operate and what to do. Regarding implants, there was no significantly statistical association between the number of implants and the osseous healing delay (p = 0.52), between the functional results and the number of implants (p = 0.46), between functional results and osseous healing delay (p = 0.52). A meta-analysis related to 722 cases from 65 published studies found no superiority of an implant.23 Our average time to union was 5 months for both proximal and diaphyseal fractures, consistent with the results in literature.5, 8, 13, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26 There were 2 patients with proximal femoral nonunion but none at diaphyseal fractures.
In our series, we registered 2 patients (20%) with bad results and 8 (80%) with good and average results. These functional results were similar with those of literature because the function appeared to be good in 63%–93% of cases.9, 10, 26
Nevertheless, the results of functional assessment are principally qualitative and the use of valid tools is rare.9, 10 Besides, the rarity of this injury makes it difficult to analyze and most of studies are retrospective with small sample size (inferior to 40 cases). These studies are insufficient to confirm the difference in functional outcomes between one-implant group and two-implant group. A randomized prospective study is further needed.
In conclusion, ipsilateral proximal and shaft femoral fractures are relatively uncommon in clinic. They pose the problem of recognition of the proximal femoral fracture which can go unnoticed. Results are generally good if the doctors take the two fractures into account in the management.
Footnotes
Peer review under responsibility of Daping Hospital and the Research Institute of Surgery of the Third Military Medical University.
References
- 1.Wolinsky P.R., Johnson K.D. Ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;318:81–90. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Watson J.T., Moed B.R. Ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures: complications and their treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;399:78–86. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200206000-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Bucholz R.W., Rathjen K. Concomitant ipsilateral fractures of the hip and femur treated with interlocking nails. Orthopedics. 1985;8:1402–1406. doi: 10.3928/0147-7447-19851101-13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Casey M.J., Chapman M.W. Ipsilateral concomitant fractures of the hip and femoral shaft. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 1979;61:503–509. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Abalo A., Dossim A., Ouro Bangnan A.F. Dynamic hip screw and compression plate fixation of ipsilatéral femoral neck and shaft fractures. J Orthop Surg. 2008;16:35–38. doi: 10.1177/230949900801600109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Friedman R.J., Wyman E.T., Jr. Ipsilateral hip and femoral shaft fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986;208:188–194. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Chen C.H., Chen T.B., Cheng Y.M. Ipsilateral fracture of the femoral neck and shaft. Injury. 2000;31:719–722. doi: 10.1016/s0020-1383(00)00096-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Okcu G., Aktuglu K. Antegrade nailing of femoral shaft fracture combined with neck or distal femur fracture. A retrospective review of 25 cases, with a fellow-up of 36–150 months. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003;123:544–550. doi: 10.1007/s00402-003-0584-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Vidyadhara S., Rao S.K. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2008.08.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Singh R., Rohilla R., Magu N.K. Ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fracture: a retrospective analysis of the two treatment methods. J Orthop Traumatol. 2008;9:141–147. doi: 10.1007/s10195-008-0025-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Boulton C.L., Pollak A.N. Special topic: ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures- does evidence give us the answer? Injury. 2015;46:478–483. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2014.11.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Chaturvedi S., Sahu S.C. Ipsilateral concomitant fracture of femoral neck and shaft. Injury. 1993;24:243–246. doi: 10.1016/0020-1383(93)90178-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Wang H.Q., Han Y.S., Li X.K. Treatment of ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures. Chin J Traumatol. 2008;11:171–174. doi: 10.1016/s1008-1275(08)60036-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Gao K., Gao W., Lie F. Treatment of ipsilateral concomitant fractures of proximal extra capsular and distal femur. Injury. 2011;42:675–681. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.11.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Alho A. Concurrent ipsilateral fractures of the hip and femoral shaft: a meta-analysis of 659 cases. Acta Orthop Scand. 1996;67:19–28. doi: 10.3109/17453679608995603. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Swiontkowski M.F., Hansen S.T., Jr., Kellam J. Ipsilateral fractures of the femoral neck and shaft. A treatment protocol. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 1984;66:260–268. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Parfenchuck T.A., Carter L.W., Young T.R. Ipsilateral fractures of the femoral neck and shaft. Orthop Rev. 1993;22:356–363. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Tornetta P., 3rd, Kain M.S., Creevy W.R. Diagnosis of femoral neck fractures in patients with a femoral shaft fracture. Improvement with a standard protocol. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2007;89:39–43. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Koldenhoven G.A., Burke J.S., Peirron R. Ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures. South Med J. 1997;90:288–293. doi: 10.1097/00007611-199703000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Schatzker J., Barrington T.W. Fractures of the femoral neck associated with fractures of the same femoral shaft. Can J Surg. 1968;11:297–305. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Wiss D.A., Sima W., Brien W.W. Ipsilateral fractures of the femoral neck and shaft. J Orthop Trauma. 1992;6:159–166. doi: 10.1097/00005131-199206000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Zettas J.P., Zettas P. Ipsilateral fractures of the femoral neck and shaft. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1981;160:63–73. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Alho A. Concurrent ipsilateral fractures of the hip and shaft of the femur. A systematic review of 722 cases. Ann Chir Gynaecol. 1997;86:326–336. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Randelli P., Landi S., Fanton F. Treatment of ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures with the Russel-Taylor reconstructive nail. Orthopedics. 1999;22:673–676. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Jain P., Maini L., Mishra P. Cephalomedullary interlocked nail for ipsilateral hip and femoral shaft fractures. Injury. 2004;35:1031–1038. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2003.09.039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Oh C.W., Oh J.K., Park B.C. Retrograde nailing with subsequent screw fixation for ipsilateral femoral shaft and neck fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2006;126:448–453. doi: 10.1007/s00402-006-0161-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]