PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “FEMORAL FRACTURES”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
PubMed1985

[Bilateral shoulder dislocation fractures, femoral neck and vertebral fractures: a remarkable combination of injuries during an epileptic seizure].

Fracture complications of convulsions are reported occasionally, e.g.: mono- or bilateral posterior shoulder luxations and luxation fractures, central dislocations of the hip as well as fractures of the femoral neck or compression fractures of vertebrae. A case is reported where the patient sustained four such lesions simultaneously. The epileptic seizure occurred following the sudden interruption of a neurotropic therapy with Carbamazepin (Tegretal). A general osteodystrophy was not found. The simultaneous presence of four such lesions following one convulsion has never before been reported and appears to be very uncommon. The frequency and problems of post-epileptic fractures are discussed and the operative treatment of the lesions briefly described.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

An experimental study of devices for internal fixation of distal femoral fractures.

Tibial traction for distal femoral fractures, followed after four to eight weeks by plaster, is the common treatment. Because of improved methodology, the proportion of surgically treated fractures had increased. Stable osteosynthesis with different plates is an established therapy for distal femoral fractures. In elderly or other patients with bone fragility, however, these operations often fail. The majority of the distal femoral fractures occur in such patients, and traction in bed is therefore often used. A less rigid device was constructed to meet the special circumstances with bone fragility. This device consists of two Ender's nails: one is inserted from each condyle, and each is connected to two cancellous screws traversing both condyles. The strength of this semielastic osteosynthesis was compared with four existing devices (AO, Rush, Zickel, Ender). Fixation was carried out in 17 pairs of osteotomized postmortem preparations from patients older than 60 years of age. The specimens were submitted to constant bending rate, and the load deformation was registered. The fixation with the condylar plate was strongest and showed the lowest flexibility. The Ender's nails and the Rush pins showed a tendency to lose their Condylar stabilization early. This was less pronounced with the Zickel nail, which, however, tended to displace at the osteotomy site during insertion and fracture the proximal fragment due to the limited bending ability of the blade construction. The new, semielastic device (ECS) was constructed to meet the special circumstances with bone fragility. It consists of two cancellous screws traversing both condyles. It combined easy insertion with moderate flexibility and high residual strength. In extension, it deflected 40 degrees without influencing residual stability. It is an interesting alternative to rigid internal fixation or traction in bed for osteoporotic patients with distal femoral fractures. In combines rigid screw fixation in the condylar part with an elastic adjustment in the femoral shaft above.

Aged↗
PubMed2002

The AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail (PFN) for the treatment of unstable trochanteric femoral fracture.

The AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail (PFN) is a new device designed for the treatment of the unstable trochanteric femoral fracture. This study reports the outcome in such fractures treated using the PFN at a District General Hospital. All patients presenting to our department with unstable trochanteric femoral fractures were treated operatively using the PFN. A total of 76 patients were included in the study and were followed up to fracture union or fixation failure. A case documentation form and follow-up form were used to collect the data which included the Salvati and Wilson assessment of hip function. The majority of the procedures were reported by the operating surgeon as "easy" or "usual". Distal locking was difficult in three patients. In one patient, the fixation failed because the screws were wrongly positioned and was revised to a THR. Mortality rate, during the first 3 months, was 27%. Of the surviving patients, screws cut through the femoral head in four patients (8%), however, fractures united in all the patients. There was one incidence of fracture around the tip of the nail. Seventy-eight percent of the patients at the final follow-up scored >20 points (out of 40 points), using the Salvati and Wilson hip function scoring system. According to the patients and/or their carers, outcome was described as good or very good in 94% of the patients and the level of function was similar to pre-injury level in 50% of the patients. We conclude that the PFN is a useful device in the treatment of the unstable trochanteric femoral fracture. It is a relatively easy procedure and a biomechanically stable construct allowing early weight bearing. Femoral neck screws positioning is critical.

Aged↗
PubMed2004

Perioperative fluid volume optimization following proximal femoral fracture.

BACKGROUND: Proximal Femoral Fracture (PFF) or 'hip fracture' is a frequent injury, and adverse outcomes are common. Several factors suggest the importance of developing techniques to optimize intravascular fluid volume. These may include protocols that enhance the efficacy of clinicians' assessments, invasive techniques such as oesophageal Doppler or central venous pressure monitoring, or advanced non-invasive techniques such as plethysmographic pulse volume determination. OBJECTIVES: To determine the optimal method of fluid volume optimization for adult patients undergoing surgical repair of PFF. Comparisons of fluid types, of blood transfusion strategies or of pharmacological interventions are not considered in this review. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, issue 4, 2003), MEDLINE (1985 to 2003), EMBASE (1985 to 2003), and bibliographies of retrieved articles. Relevant journals and conference proceedings were handsearched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled studies comparing a fluid optimization intervention with normal practice or with another fluid optimization intervention, in patients following PFF undergoing surgery of any type under anaesthesia of any type. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Searches and exclusion of clearly irrelevant articles were performed by one reviewer. Two reviewers examined independently the remaining studies, extracting study quality and results data. A wide range of short- and long-term outcome data were sought. Studies were excluded if they did not meet selection criteria or if results were likely to be biased. Due to inconsistent data reporting, combination of data was not generally possible. MAIN RESULTS: Searches identified four trials, of which two studies, randomizing a total of 130 patients, were of adequate quality and addressed the review question. Both studies were of invasive advanced haemodynamic monitoring, either oesophageal Doppler ultrasonography or central venous pressure monitoring, during the intraoperative period only. In both, invasive monitoring led to significant increases in fluid volumes infused and reductions in length of hospital stay. The pooled Peto odds ratio for in-hospital fatality was 1.44 (95% confidence interval 0.45-4.62). Neither study followed patients beyond hospital discharge or assessed functional outcomes. No serious complications were directly attributable to the interventions. There were no studies of protocol-guided fluid optimization or of advanced non-invasive techniques. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Invasive methods of fluid optimization during surgery may shorten hospital stay, but their effects on other important, patient-centred, longer-term outcomes are uncertain. Adverse effects on fatality cannot be excluded. Other fluid optimization techniques have not been evaluated. The lack of randomized studies of adequate quality addressing this important question is disappointing. More research is needed.

Femoral Fractures↗
PubMed2006

Arthroplasties (with and without bone cement) for proximal femoral fractures in adults.

BACKGROUND: Numerous types of arthroplasties may be used in the surgical treatment of a hip fracture (proximal femoral fracture). The main differences between the implants are in the design of the stems, whether the stem is fixed in place with or without cement, whether a second articulating joint is included within the prosthesis (bipolar prosthesis) or whether a partial (hemiarthroplasty) or total whole hip replacement is used. OBJECTIVES: To review all randomised controlled trials that have compared different arthroplasties for the treatment of hip fractures in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (December 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2005), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the UK National Research Register, several orthopaedic journals, conference proceedings and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing different arthroplasties and their insertion with or without cement, for the treatment of hip fractures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality, by use of a ten-item checklist, and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Seventeen trials involving 1920 patients were included. One trial involved two comparisons. Cemented prostheses, when compared with uncemented (six trials, 549 participants) were associated with less pain at a year or later (16/52 versus 28/52; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.81) and a tendency to better mobility. No significant difference in surgical complications was found. Comparison of unipolar hemiarthroplasty with bipolar hemiarthroplasty (seven trials, 857 participants, 863 fractures) showed no significant differences between the two types of implant. Two trials involving 232 patients compared uncemented hemiarthroplasty with a total hip replacement. Both studies reported increased pain for the uncemented prosthesis and one study found better mobility and a lower long-term revision rate for those treated with a THR. Two trials involving 214 participants compared cemented hemiarthroplasty versus total hip replacement. Both trials generally found little difference between prostheses. THR was associated with a slightly longer surgical time but a tendency to better functional outcome in one trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence that cementing a prosthesis in place may reduce post-operative pain and lead to better mobility. There is insufficient evidence to determine the roles of bipolar prostheses and total hip replacement. Further well-conducted randomised trials are required.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Arthroplasties (with and without bone cement) for proximal femoral fractures in adults.

BACKGROUND: Numerous types of arthroplasties may be used in the surgical treatment of a hip fracture (proximal femoral fracture). The main differences between the implants are the design of the stems, whether the stem is fixed in place with or without cement, whether a second articulating joint is included within the prosthesis (bipolar prosthesis) or whether the whole hip joint is replaced. OBJECTIVES: To review all randomised trials that have compared different arthroplasties for the treatment of hip fractures in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group specialised register. Additional trials were identified by searching reference lists of relevant articles, conference proceedings, and contact with trialists. Date of most recent search: January 2001. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing different arthroplasties (and or cement), for the treatment of hip fractures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality, by use of a ten-item checklist and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen trials involving 1464 patients were included. One trial investigated two comparisons. Cemented prostheses, when compared with uncemented (four trials, 391 participants) were associated with a lower risk of failure to regain mobility (relative risk (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44, 0.82) and of post-operation pain at a year or later (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.31, 0.81). For this comparison, there were no significant differences in any other outcome. Comparison of unipolar hemiarthroplasty with bipolar hemiarthroplasty (six trials, 742 participants) showed no significant differences between the two types of implant. Two trials of 269 patients compared different types of hemiarthroplasty with a total hip replacement and two trials of 151 patients compared either different types of prosthesis head or different bipolar prostheses. Because of the limited number of cases and the use of different prostheses, no definite conclusions could be made from these four studies. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Cementing prostheses in place seems to reduce pain post-operatively and results in better mobility, but because of the under-reporting of outcomes and the small number of patients involved, no definite conclusions can be made. The role of bipolar prostheses and total hip replacement is uncertain. Further well-conducted randomised trials are required.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Arthroplasties (with and without bone cement) for proximal femoral fractures in adults.

BACKGROUND: Numerous types of arthroplasties may be used in the surgical treatment of a hip fracture (proximal femoral fracture). The main differences between the implants are the design of the stems, whether the stem is fixed in place with or without cement, whether a second articulating joint is included within the prosthesis (bipolar prosthesis) or whether the whole hip joint is replaced. OBJECTIVES: To review all randomised trials that have compared different arthroplasties for the treatment of hip fractures in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group specialised register which is compiled by regular searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Additional trials were identified by searching reference lists of relevant articles, conference proceedings, and contact with trialists. Date of most recent search: October 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing different arthroplasties (and/or cement), for the treatment of hip fractures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality, by use of a ten-item checklist and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen trials involving 1670 patients were included. One trial involved two comparisons. Cemented prostheses, when compared with uncemented (five trials, 482 participants) were associated with a lower risk of failure to regain mobility (relative risk (RR) 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.82) and of post-operation pain at a year or later (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.81). For this comparison, there were no significant differences in any other outcome. Comparison of unipolar hemiarthroplasty with bipolar hemiarthroplasty (seven trials, 857 participants) showed no significant differences between the two types of implant. Two trials of 269 patients compared different types of hemiarthroplasty with a total hip replacement and two trials of 151 patients compared either different types of prosthesis head or different bipolar prostheses. Because of the limited number of cases and the use of different prostheses, no definite conclusions could be made from these four studies. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Cementing prostheses in place seems to reduce pain post-operatively and results in better mobility, but because of the under-reporting of outcomes and the small number of patients involved, no definite conclusions can be made. The role of bipolar prostheses and total hip replacement is uncertain. Further well-conducted randomised trials are required.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Controlled femoral fracture: easy in.

Revision femoral surgery is a demanding procedure with the potential for severe intraoperative complications, including bone loss and femoral fracture. The extended trochanteric osteotomy is a reproducible and safe technique to remove the femoral components for infection, loosening, component failure, malposition, and dislocation. From 1992 to 1996, 142 consecutive hip revisions were performed with the use of an extended proximal femoral osteotomy. This technique allowed component extraction without fracture in all patients and subsequently allowed for neutral reaming of the femoral canal with placement of the revision stems in proper alignment. There were 2 nonunions of the osteotomized fragments at an average postoperative follow-up period of 2.6 years. Additional complications included 4 fractures of the osteotomized fragment and one malunion. We have found that use of the osteotomy is an efficient, safe and reliable technique in revision hip arthroplasty.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

[Intramedullary nailing in closed femoral fractures].

Intramedullary nailing of femoral fractures has gone through a revival in the past few years because of improvements in both materials and design. Axial forces are tolerated very well by the nail; however, its stiffness in both rotation and bending is related inversely to its working length. Fractures of the middle shaft can be stabilized without problems due to elastic contact forces that result in a tight grip inside the bone. Reaming and interlocking extend the indications to more complicated fractures. The development of solid nails with augmented stiffness, but smaller diameter, permits unreamed nailing with reduced damage to the medullary cavity and the avoidance of dead space. The AO developed a modular solid nail system with a variety of interlocking possibilities. With respect to soft tissue injury and biomechanics, nailing is the procedure of choice for femoral fractures.

Biomechanical Phenomena↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Birth-associated femoral fractures: incidence and outcome.

Femoral fractures resulting from birth injuries are rare. The authors undertook a study to assess their incidence and outcome. Seven patients from a total of 55,296 live births suffered 8 femoral fractures (incidence 0.13 per 1,000 live births). Twin pregnancies, breech presentations, prematurity, and disuse osteoporosis were associated with the occurrence of a fracture. The typical injury pattern was a spiral fracture of the proximal half of the femur, which was held in an extended position. A variety of treatment modalities were used, including gallows traction, spica cast, and Pavlik harness. All patients in this study, regardless of treatment, had a satisfactory clinical outcome, with no evidence of limb length discrepancy or angular deformity on follow-up.

Birth Injuries↗
PubMed2002

Mennen plate fixation for the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures: a multicenter study of thirty-six fractures.

BACKGROUND: The management of periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip and knee replacement remains difficult and controversial. This study was performed to determine the results of Mennen plate fixation for the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures. METHODS: This retrospective multicenter study consists of a review of a consecutive series of thirty-five patients in whom a total of thirty-six periprosthetic femoral fractures were treated with Mennen plate fixation. The average duration of follow-up was twenty-seven months (range, eight to forty-six months). RESULTS: Twenty-six fractures (72%) had united at an average of five months (range, three to ten months) after surgery. One of them had varus bending (10 degrees) of the plate. The remaining ten fractures had a nonunion and varus bending (20 degrees to 30 degrees) of the plate, with a fracture of the plate in eight. A revision procedure was successfully performed in the eight patients with nonunion. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of unstable periprosthetic femoral fractures with Mennen plate fixation was complicated by high rates of mechanical failure (31%) and nonunion (28%). For this reason, we do not recommend the use of the Mennen plate for the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

The management of periprosthetic femoral fractures around hip replacements.

Periprosthetic femoral fractures are increasing in frequency and in complexity. They occur intra-operatively, or post-operatively, when they are frequently associated with loosening, with or without osteolysis. Periprosthetic femoral fractures usually occur at low energy levels, either after falls or spontaneously during activities of daily living. At present, the Vancouver classification system probably comes closest to the ideal, as it considers the fracture configuration, the stability of the implant and the quality of the bone stock. When the stem is stable, open reduction and internal fixation is suggested. Several authors have used strut grafts for the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures, with good results. If the stem is loose, or revision is indicated for other reasons, it is generally advisable to by-pass the most distal fracture line with a longer stem prosthesis by at least two femoral diameters. Augmentation of this intra-medullary fixation with an external cortical strut to improve rotational stability and/or internally with impaction allografting to compensate for bone defects is also advisable. Vigilant post-operative clinical and radiological assessment following total hip replacement should identify those with recurrent dislocation, loosening, subsidence and osteolysis. These patients are at greatest risk of developing femoral periprosthetic fractures.

Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip↗
PubMed2002

[Retrograde locking nail osteosynthesis of distal femoral fractures with the distal femoral nail (DFN)].

Non-operative treatment with immobilization or isometric traction has been abandoned as treatment for fractures of the distal femur at the end of the 1960ies. The technique of open reduction and internal fixation with a condylar plate as suggested by the AO has been the golden standard since the 1970ies. However, anatomic reconstruction of the condylar region with interfragmentary screw fixation and axial realignment of the femur shaft with a plate are challenging procedures especially in the presence of severely compromised soft tissues and put periosteal blood supply at risk. Soft tissue complications, axial malalignment and delayed fracture healing times led to the consideration of alternative techniques, such as intramedullary nailing which has been practiced with success since the 1940ies by Gerhard Küntscher and colleagues for femoral shaft fractures with minimal complication rates and improved results after closed reduction. The era of retrograde femoral nailing began with the systematic approach through the intercondylar notch by Green. This paper reviews the biomechanical properties, indication, technique as well as potential hazards and pitfalls of fracture management with the AO "distal femoral nail" (DFN). With appropriate application this technique is suitable for all fractures of the distal third of the femoral shaft including highly instable bicondylar fractures without damage to the soft tissues and the knee joint.

Biomechanical Phenomena↗
PubMed1991

[The Gamma Nail in per- and intertrochanteric femoral fractures--alternative or supplement to the dynamic hip screw? A prospective randomized study of 100 patients with per- and intertrochanteric femoral fractures in the surgical clinic of the City Hospital of Triemli, Zurich, September 1989 - June 1990].

In a prospective randomised trial between September 89 and June 90 one hundred patients with per- and subtrochanteric fractures were consecutively treated by Gamma-nail or DHS. The average age of both groups was about 80 years. The operation time for Gamma-nailing was longer than for DHS-implantation and also the postoperative blood loss was higher in the Gamma-nail-group. We found no difference of intraoperative blood loss, of perioperative letality and in duration of hospital care. 90% of Gamma-nail-patients and 80% of DHS-patients were successfully able to walk four days after operation with full weight bearing on the operated limb. Six patients (12%) with DHS had to be reoperated within 6 weeks. Three patients with unstable fractures got cranial perforation of the cephalic screw after mobilisation. The other three patients had soft tissue complications. Five patients (10%) of the Gamma-nail-group were reoperated, one case because of missed distal locking, one because of cranial perforation of the cephalic screw after varus dislocation of the proximal fragment. One patient suffered intraoperatively a proximal femur shaft fracture which was corrected during operation. In one case a wound hematoma was evacuated, an other patient needed secondary wound closure. Despite technical imperfection of implant and instruments, we conclude that the Gamma-nail allows a very high percentage early and full weight bearing immediately after operation. So we consider that in the treatment of unstable pertrochanteric fractures of geriatric patients, the Gamma-nail has proven to be more efficient than the DHS.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Above-knee Ilizarov external fixation for early periprosthetic supracondylar femoral fracture--a case report.

Supracondylar femoral fractures above a total knee replacement are rare injuries that may be challenging to treat. We present a 60-year-old woman who sustained a supracondylar femoral fracture 10 days following a total knee replacement. This patient had multiple risk factors. The fracture was not deemed amenable to conventional treatment. This patient underwent fixation of her femoral fracture above a total knee replacement using a two-ring above-knee Ilizarov external fixator. This allowed full mobilization of the affected limb during fracture healing. The fixator was removed at 10 weeks, at which time the fracture was solidly healed. At the most recent follow-up, 14 months from injury, she was fully weight-bearing without walking aids and had a knee range of motion of 0-120 degrees .

Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee↗
PubMed1995

Influence of intraoperative femoral fractures and cerclage wiring on bone ingrowth into canine porous-coated femoral components.

Intraoperative femoral fractures occur more frequently with cementless than with cemented components. In this study, the influence of controlled femoral fractures fixed with cerclage wires on rotational stability and bone ingrowth into porous-coated canine femoral components was evaluated. These data were compared with results of previous studies on unrecognized femoral fractures (not stabilized) and on the intact canine femur. Micromotion analysis revealed a significant increase in rotational instability in fractures not stabilized with cerclage wires (P < .05) compared with the intact femur. Experimentally created femoral fractures had a significantly deleterious effect on bone ingrowth even after cerclage wiring. This appears to be caused by a lack of bone ingrowth deep to the fracture and an increase in femoral component micromotion. In clinical practice, femoral fractures occurring during cementless total hip arthroplasty are a serious problem, and use of a cemented prosthesis is recommended if rotational stability of the stem cannot be ensured.

Animals↗
PubMed2003

Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty with femoral component revision.

BACKGROUND: Revision total hip arthroplasty is indicated for most periprosthetic fractures that occur around the stem of the femoral implant. The purpose of the present study was to assess the results and complications of revision total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures. METHODS: We evaluated 118 hips in 116 patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty because of an acute Vancouver type-B periprosthetic femoral fracture. The femoral implant used for the revision was a cemented stem in forty-two hips, a proximally porous-coated uncemented stem in twenty-eight, an extensively porous-coated stem in thirty, and an allograft-prosthesis composite or tumor prosthesis in eighteen. The mean duration of follow-up was 5.4 years. RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that the probability of survival was 90% at five years and 79.2% at ten years with revision or removal of the femoral implant for any reason as the end point. Sixteen femoral components were rerevised: ten were rerevised because of loosening; three, because of loosening in association with a fracture nonunion; two, because of recurrent dislocation; and one, because of a new periprosthetic fracture. Additionally, six femoral implants were resected because of deep infection (five) or prosthetic loosening (one). Radiographs of the ninety-six hips with a surviving implant showed that twenty-one had evidence of loosening of the femoral implant, four had a nonunion of the femoral fracture, and two had both a nonunion and loosening of the femoral implant. CONCLUSIONS: Revision total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of a periprosthetic fracture around the stem of the femoral implant successfully restored function for most patients. The greatest long-term problems were prosthetic loosening and fracture nonunion. Better results were seen when an uncemented, extensively porous-coated stem was used.

Adult↗