Copyright © SLACK inCorporAted

n Feature Article

abstract

Complications After Hip Nailing for FracturesAndreAs F. MAvrogenis, Md; georgios n. PAnAgoPoulos, Md; PAnAyiotis d. MegAloikonoMos, Md; vAsilios g. igouMenou, Md; ioAnnis gAlAnoPoulos, Md; Christos t. vottis, Md; PAnAyiotis kArAbinAs, Md; PAnAyiotis koulouvAris, Md; vAsilios A. kontogeorgAkos, Md; John vlAMis, Md; PAnAyiotis J. PAPAgeloPoulos, Md

Hip fractures in elderly patients represent a health issue of global proportions.1-6 They are among

the most common orthopedic injuries, with more than 250,000 cases occurring annually in the United States alone.1 In

the United Kingdom, hip fractures have an annual incidence of 70,000 to 75,000, with a medical and social care cost of ap-proximately £2 billion (€2.3 billion; $3.3 billion).3 Worldwide, it has been estimat-ed that the total number of hip fractures could reach 2.6 million by 2025 and 4.5 million by 2050.2 Data show that 90% of these fractures occur in geriatric patients (65 years or older),5 usually as a conse-quence of a low-energy mechanism, typi-cally a low-energy fall from a standing height.6 As the population ages, it is com-monly believed that their incidence is due to increase exponentially within the next

Pertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients represent a major health issue. The available surgical options are fixation with extramedullary devices, intra-medullary nailing, and arthroplasty. Intramedullary nailing for hip fractures has become more popular in recent years. Advantages of intramedullary nail-ing for hip fracture fixation include a more efficient load transfer due to the proximity of the implant to the medial calcar, less implant strain and shorter lever arm because of its closer positioning to the mechanical axis of the femur, significantly less soft tissue disruption and periosteal stripping of the femoral cortex, shorter operative time and hospital stay, fewer blood transfu-sions, better postoperative walking ability, and lower rates of leg-length dis-crepancy. Compromise of the posteromedial cortex and/or the lateral cortex, a subtrochanteric extension of the fracture, and a reversed obliquity fracture pattern represent signs of fracture instability, warranting the use of intramed-ullary nailing. However, the use of intramedullary nailing, with its unique set of clinical implications, has introduced a new set of complications. The reported complications include malalignment, cutout, infection, false drill-ing, wrong lag screw length and drill bit breakage during the interlocking procedure, external or internal malrotation (≥20°) of the femoral diaphysis, elongation of the femur (2 cm), impaired bone healing, periprosthetic frac-ture distal to the tip of the nail, fracture collapse, implant failure, lag screw intrapelvic migration, neurovascular injury, secondary varus deviation, com-plications after implant removal, trochanteric pain, and refracture. Many of these complications are related to technical mistakes. This article reviews intramedullary nailing for the treatment of pertrochanteric femoral fractures, with an emphasis on complications. [Orthopedics. 2016; 39(1):e108-e116.]

The authors are from the First Department of Orthopaedics (AFM, GNP, PDM, VGI, IG, CTV, PKoulouvaris, VAK, PJP) and the Third Depart-ment of Orthopaedics (PKarabinas, JV), National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.

The authors have no relevant financial rela-tionships to disclose.

The authors thank Constantinos E. Nikolo-poulos, MD, Professor of Orthopaedics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece, for his mentoring in treating hip fractures.

Correspondence should be addressed to: An-dreas F. Mavrogenis, MD, First Department of Orthopaedics, National and Kapodistrian Uni-versity of Athens, 41 Ventouri St, 15562 Holargos, Athens, Greece (afm@otenet.gr).

Received: March 16, 2015; Accepted: June 15, 2015.

doi: 10.3928/01477447-20151222-11

e108

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016 | Volume 39 • Number 1

n Feature Article

few decades. The 1-month and 1-year mortality of patients with hip fractures is approximately 10% and 30%, respective-ly, usually resulting from comorbidities rather than from the fracture itself.4

Pertrochanteric fractures, defined as those occurring in the region from the extracapsular basilar femoral neck to the region along the lesser trochanter proxi-mal to the development of the medullary canal, represent approximately 50% of all hip fractures.6-12 Surgical treatment is the treatment of choice, aiming to restore the preinjury level of independence and function within the shortest time possible. Traditionally, operative options for these fractures have been categorized into ex-tramedullary fixation, intramedullary fixa-tion, and arthroplasty.9-12 Arthroplasty is typically reserved as a salvage procedure for failed or complicated primary fixation of pertrochanteric fractures. Extramed-ullary fixation is the oldest and includes blade-plate, fixed-angle nail-plate, sliding nail-plate, sliding hip-screw, and locking-plate fixation constructs. Intramedullary fixation is newer and has become popular for the treatment of pertrochanteric frac-tures, increasing from 3% of all cases in 1999 to 67% in 2006 in the United States.7 Based on their design, intramedullary hip nails may be inserted through the pirifor-mis fossa or the lateral or medial greater trochanter. In order of their invention, they have been classified into 4 classes: (1) the impaction class or “Y” nail class, originated with the Küntscher nail and currently represented by the trochanter-ic femoral nail (TFN); (2) the dynamic compression or gamma class, originated with the Stryker (Kalamazoo, Michigan) gamma nail with a single large lag screw into the femoral head; (3) the reconstruc-tion nail developed by Russell and Tay-lor with 2 separate lag screws (Smith & Nephew, Memphis, Tennessee); and (4) the InterTAN class, comprising a medial trochanteric entry design and a trapezoidal cross-section similar to a hip arthroplasty femoral stem with an integrated 2-screw

construct. Their evolution with time has resolved many technical issues.

Advantages of intramedullary nailing for hip fracture fixation include a more ef-ficient load transfer due to the proximity of the implant to the medial calcar, less implant strain and shorter lever arm be-cause of its closer positioning to the me-chanical axis of the femur,8 significantly less soft tissue disruption and periosteal stripping of the femoral cortex,9-12 shorter operative time and hospital stay, fewer blood transfusions, better postoperative walking ability,11 and lower rates of leg-length discrepancy.12 Compromise of the posteromedial cortex and/or the lateral cortex, a subtrochanteric extension of the fracture, and a reversed obliquity fracture pattern represent signs of fracture instabil-ity, warranting the use of intramedullary nailing.9-12

However, the use of intramedul-lary nailing has introduced a new set of complications with unique clinical im-plications.13-15 Although intramedullary implants became increasingly popular in recent years for the internal fixation of unstable (AO/OTA 31-A2.2, 31-A2.3, and 31-A3) and stable (AO/OTA 31-A1 and 31-A2.1) pertrochanteric fractures,13,15 in the latter case intramedullary fixation does not seem to be an advantage when compared with extramedullary fixa-tion due to a higher complication rate.14 Therefore, the current authors performed this study to review these complications, describe the circumstances under which they occur, and clarify the strategies im-plemented to avoid or minimize them.

Materials and MethodsAn Internet-based search was conduct-

ed using the PubMed search engine for articles in the medical literature published until February 2015. The search terms hip nailing, complications, and pertrochanter-ic were entered, and relative results were retrieved. Editorials, letters to the editor, and publications in languages other than English, German, and French were ex-

cluded. After locating a sufficient number of individual complications, the literature search was restricted, combining the term hip nailing with each individual complica-tion identified. In addition, the references from the resulting manuscripts were re-viewed to identify further suitable articles. Major relevant textbooks were also used as a reference. The resulting complications were grouped as those relevant to intra-medullary nailing in general; those inher-ently related to hip nailing were studied in depth if they were deemed relevant.

resultsThe literature search resulted in numer-

ous reports regarding intraoperative and postoperative complications and technical errors with intramedullary hip nailing for fractures.16-69 The reported complications include malalignment, cutout, infection, false drilling, wrong lag screw length and drill bit breakage during the interlocking procedure, external or internal malrotation (≥20°) of the femoral diaphysis, elongation of the femur (2 cm), impaired bone heal-ing, periprosthetic fracture distal to the tip of the nail, fracture collapse, implant fail-ure, lag screw intrapelvic migration, neu-rovascular injury, secondary varus devia-tion, complications after implant removal, trochanteric pain, and refracture.16-69

Malalignment of the hip fracture in the setting of intramedullary nailing may result from different types of mechanical failure, such as loss of reduction, techni-

Figure 1: Anteroposterior (A) and lateral (B) ra-diographs showing primary malalignment from technically inadequate fixation of a pertrochanteric fracture with a dual femoral head lag screw intra-medullary hip nail.

A B

e109

Copyright © SLACK inCorporAted

n Feature Article

cally inadequate fixation (Figure 1), varus deformity, lag screw cutout, and peripros-thetic femoral fractures distal to the tip of the nail (Figure 2). Any deviation in the coronal plane (>5°), the sagittal plane (>10°), or the axial plane (>15°) may produce uneven distribution of contact pressures within the joint, leading to pre-mature joint degeneration.20 A lateral en-try point for trochanteric entry nails may induce gapping of the lateral cortex and varus malalignment (Figure 3).22 Subtro-chanteric fractures are more susceptible to varus or rotational malreduction and leg-length discrepancy.

Cutout has been associated with multi-factorial variables, including patient age,

bone quality, fracture pattern, reduction adequacy, lag screw position, implant de-sign, and choice of nail angle.24 Four fac-tors were the most important predictors for the development of this complication: suboptimal fracture reduction, nonideal femoral head lag screw position, unstable fracture pattern, and intramedullary im-plant design.25 The combination of the first 3 of these factors further increased the risk of cutout because complex frac-ture patterns may be difficult to reduce anatomically, which in turn can lead to difficulty in achieving an acceptable lag screw position (Figure 4).26

Periprosthetic femoral fractures usu-ally occurred distal to the tip of the intramedullary nail (Figure 5). Early-

generation intramedullary nails and dy-namic interlocking have been associated with a significantly higher risk for iatro-genic femoral fractures after intramedul-lary nailing for hip fractures.22,29,30 Im-pingement and penetration of the anterior femoral cortex may occur during nail in-sertion in shorter patients, use of long hip nails, and inappropriate entry point.31,32 Varus malreduction of the fracture, im-proper entry point selection, severe os-teoporosis, and medial comminution were the most important related factors for z-effect and reverse z-effect after hip nailing for fractures (Figure 6).33-35

Medial migration into the pelvis of the femoral head lag screw has been related to suboptimal femoral head lag screw po-sitioning.36-41 This phenomenon has been associated mostly with proximal femur nails (PFNs; Synthes, Paoli, Pennsylva-nia), but it was recently demonstrated in a study of 5 different nails (TFN, PFN, and PFNA; Synthes; and Gamma-3; Stryker; and IMHS; Smith & Nephew) in a biome-chanical model of an unstable pertrochan-teric fracture. The nails were examined to an endpoint of 9 mm of medial migration on completion of 5000 loading cycles. Results showed that medial migration oc-curred in all implants with no statistically significant difference between them.40

Implant breakage usually occurred at the interface between the interlocking screws and the nail, although breakage of

Figure 2: Malalignment of a pertrochanteric frac-ture (A). Cutout of the femoral head lag screw (B).

A B

Figure 3: Postoperative radiograph at external rotation (A). Anteroposterior (B) and lateral (C) views showing primary malalignment in anteversion.

A B C

Figure 4: Suboptimal fracture reduction, poor femoral head lag screw position, unstable fracture pattern, and cutout of the femoral head lag screw.

Figure 5: Intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture during nail insertion (A); the fracture was diagnosed after insertion of the distal interlocking screw. Postoperative periprosthetic femoral frac-ture at the tip of the intramedullary nail (B); the fracture line starts at the distal interlocking screw.

A B

e110

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016 | Volume 39 • Number 1

n Feature Article

the nail itself has also been reported (Fig-ures 7-9).16 Risk factors for periprosthetic infection after hip nailing included open hip fractures, lack of thorough debride-ment, delay in administration of periop-erative antibiotics prophylaxis, low so-cioeconomical status of the patients with limited access to health care systems, delay in soft tissue coverage or wound closure, prolonged operative time, and prior stabilization with external fixation (Figure 10).43-46 Risk factors for delayed union and nonunion after hip nailing in-cluded complex fracture patterns, poor bone quality, suboptimal implant position, open fractures, poor surgical technique with disruption of the soft tissue and com-promise of the blood supply, smoking, and unreamed nailing (Figure 11).52-55 Fracture dynamization through removal of the distal interlocking screw has not al-ways been successful.57

Neurovascular structures were sus-ceptible to iatrogenic intraoperative in-jury during percutaneous insertion of implants such as pins (Figure 12), drill bits (Figure 13), screw tips, and blades, or by a displaced bone fragment during the fracture or repair.58-63 The most com-mon vascular structure was the profunda femoris, followed by the superficial fem-oris, superior gluteal, and inferior epi-gastric arteries.58-67 Compression of the femoral nerve by a secondarily displaced fragment of the lesser trochanter,19 late (7 years) sciatic nerve injury from het-erotopic ossification,68 and superior glu-teal nerve compression from positioning of the patient on the fracture table have also been reported after intramedullary nailing for hip fractures.19,68,69 In a case report, femoral nerve compression was relieved with removal of the bone frag-ment through the anterior approach to the hip.19 In another report, removal of the intramedullary hip nail and the hetero-topic bone and external neurolysis of the sciatic nerve were performed, but with-out improvement of the motor power for the patient.68

discussionIntramedullary nailing for pertrochan-

teric fractures has become popular in re-cent years. However, implant-related com-plications may occur.16-69 The evolution of hip nails over time has resolved many technical issues,29 but many of these com-plications are related to technical mistakes.

Malalignment of the hip fracture in the setting of intramedullary nailing can occur primarily or secondarily; both are equally important to ensure successful intramedullary osteosynthesis. Primary malalignment is the deformity that oc-curs immediately after the patient has left the operating room; this is under the di-rect control of the surgeon and should be considered preventable with meticulous surgical technique because it is largely a consequence of either an inappropriate

entry point or malreduction of the frac-ture. It is critical for the orthopedic sur-geon to understand that the nail will not

Figure 6: The z-effect (A) and cutout of the supe-rior lag screw (B) from suboptimal fracture reduc-tion of a pertrochanteric fracture.

A B

Figure 8: Septic nonunion and nail breakage.

Figure 10: Infection of a comminuted pertrochan-teric fracture.

Figure 7: Nail breakage (A). Femoral head lag screw breakage (B).

A B

Figure 9: Suboptimal fracture reduction and nail breakage.

A B

e111

Copyright © SLACK inCorporAted

n Feature Article

simply perform the fracture reduction by itself upon insertion. Care must be taken to ensure that fracture reduction and en-try point are appropriately established to prevent malalignment.21 A lateral entry point for trochanteric entry nails should be avoided.22 This is even more important for fractures with subtrochanteric exten-sion, probably because of the anatomy of the subtrochanteric region. Significant fracture displacement occurs secondary to the pull of the iliopsoas, gluteus medius, and short external rotators muscles on the proximal fragment, which is consequently pulled in flexion, abduction, and external rotation. In the meantime, the unopposed force of the adductors on the distal frac-ture fragment leads to femoral shorten-ing. This underscores the importance of a proper surgical technique and anatomical reduction of the fracture.

Secondary malalignment occurs at some point during the postoperative peri-

od as a result of change in position of the fracture fragments. It is usually attributed to a loss of fixation in poor quality bone or to technically inadequate fixation in com-bination with an unstable fracture pattern, premature dynamization, or noncompli-ance with appropriate weight-bearing restrictions. Secondary malalignment of hip fractures treated with intramedullary nailing can be minimized by applying the standard intramedullary nailing princi-ples, including static interlocking of suffi-ciently sized nails and implementation of weight-bearing restrictions, as necessary.

Cutout is defined as the collapse of the neck-shaft angle into varus, leading to extrusion of the lag screw from the femoral head.23,24 In a large study of 3066 hip fractures, the prevalence of cutout was 1.85%; the most important predic-tors were suboptimal fracture reduction, nonideal femoral head lag screw position, unstable fracture pattern, and intramedul-lary implant design.25,26 The importance of an optimal position of the lag screw in the femoral head should be emphasized. Two locations have been described as be-ing optimal: the central-central zone and central-inferior zone as seen on the lat-eral and anteroposterior views.27 Central placement in the lateral radiograph has been reported to be more crucial.9 This is the same concept represented by an ideal tip to apex distance of less than 25 mm (more recently less than 20 mm) and its proven repercussions to the rates of fixa-tion failure.28 To avoid cutout, careful pre-operative planning with correct fracture

geometry assessment and fracture pattern classification, as well as a correct op-erative technique, are necessary. Because these factors can be controlled by the sur-geon, they are considered fundamental to achieving optimal surgical results and obviate the need for revision procedures.

Intraoperative or postoperative iatro-genic periprosthetic femoral fractures are a notorious complication of intramedul-lary nailing for hip fractures. A high in-cidence of variable types of intraopera-tive iatrogenic femoral fractures has been reported.7 A meta-analysis performed to identify the risk of femoral fractures asso-ciated with short intramedullary hip nails for pertrochanteric hip fractures showed that in studies published between 1991 and 2000, gamma nails increased the risk of femoral fracture by 4.5 times when compared with extramedullary implants using compression screws.29 However, studies published between 2000 and 2005 showed that the incidence of iatrogenic periprosthetic femoral fractures was simi-lar between intramedullary and extramed-ullary implants, suggesting that the in-creased risk of femoral fracture associated with early-generation intramedullary im-plants has been resolved by the improved implant design and surgical technique.29 Currently, modern trochanteric intramed-ullary nail designs have moved to a 4- to 6-degree proximal bend positioned above the region of the lesser trochanter (simi-lar to the Herzog bend in tibia nails) for improved fit in the femoral metaphysis.22 By using modern intramedullary hip nails,

Figure 12: Medial migration (A) and breakage (B) of the guidewire of the femoral head lag screw.

A B

Figure 13: Intraoperative vascular injury of an arte-riosclerotic profunda femoris artery (arrows) from the drill bit of the distal interlocking nail screw.

Figure 11: Nonunion of a pertrochanteric fracture after disengagement and lateral migration of single (A) and dual (B) femoral head lag screws.

A B

e112

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016 | Volume 39 • Number 1

n Feature Article

the rate of periprosthetic fractures has been similar for short and long nails and significantly lower with static compared with dynamic interlocking.30 To avoid iat-rogenic periprosthetic femoral fractures, the surgeon should not force the nail into the femur. If the nail does not advance by hand, it should be extracted, and the femo-ral canal should be overreamed and rein-sertion attempted.

A rare intraoperative iatrogenic com-plication of hip nailing is impingement and penetration of the anterior femoral cortex during nail insertion.31,32 This com-plication may occur in shorter patients (height less than 160 cm) with increased femoral bowing and when a long hip nail is used with an improper trochanteric en-try point. Careful preoperative planning and selection of a more posterior trochan-teric entry point are necessary to obviate this major complication.31,32

The z-effect and reverse z-effect are unique phenomena that were first de-scribed in 200234,39 with the use of hip nails comprising 2 interlocking head screws; the terms refer to the migration of the femoral head lag screws in opposite di-rections with consequent varus collapse of the fracture. The z-effect is characterized by lateral migration of the inferior screw, varus collapse of the fracture, and perfora-tion of the femoral head by the superior screw. The reverse z-effect is character-ized by lateral migration of the superior screw and medial migration of the inferior screw. Although the biomechanics of this complication remain unclear, it seems that varus malreduction of the fracture, im-proper entry point selection, severe osteo-porosis, and medial comminution are the most important related factors.33-35

Medial migration into the pelvis of the femoral head lag screw, similar to the reverse z-effect, may occur with hip nails comprising a single femoral head lag screw.36-41 Sporadic cases of this compli-cation have been reported in the setting of suboptimal femoral head lag screw positioning.36-41 Intrapelvic complications

from medial migration of the femoral head lag screw may be significant, includ-ing sigmoid perforation, retroperitoneal abscess formation, and neurovascular in-juries.37,38 Medial migration of the femo-ral head lag screw has been explained by a defective mechanism of the set screw37,38 or by the z-effect phenomenon itself.39-41 In the latter case, the hypothesis was that as rotation and axial loading occurred with the initiation of weight bearing, the lag screw disengaged from the nail and migrated medially rather than laterally.

Implant breakage may occur when the implant sustains more load than intended because of early excessive weight bearing or prolonged cyclical loading, as in the case of nonunion. Failure may occur at the weakest portion of the construct, which is the interface between the interlocking screws and the nail, or at the nail itself.16 It has been suggested that increasing the number, diameter, and type of interlock-ing fixation may increase the fatigue strength of the construct.16

Periprosthetic infection may occur in 1.1% to 3.2% of patients with pertro-chanteric fractures treated with intramed-ullary hip nailing.43,44 The rate is lower compared with other sites of intramed-ullary nailing, probably because of the more generous soft tissue envelope and lower incidence of open fractures.43-46 Management of the infection is challeng-ing. In the acute postoperative period, a strategy of irrigation and debridement, systemic antibiotics administration, and implant retention has been recommended for bone stability that is a prerequisite for successful eradication of infection. However, the presence of an intramedul-lary implant (rather than an extramedul-lary plate and screw construct) places this strategy at a higher risk of failure.47 Therefore, nail removal and bone recon-struction in a staged procedure should be pursued.47-51

Delayed union and nonunion may occur in 1% to 2% of the patients with pertrochanteric fractures treated with in-

tramedullary hip nailing. The rate is low because of the excellent blood supply and good cancellous bone in the intertrochan-teric region of the femur and the fact that the fracture is reduced in a closed fashion that creates minimal disturbance to the blood supply and soft tissue envelope of the area.52-57 Management should be con-sidered on an individual basis. Any under-lying metabolic and endocrine abnormali-ties should be corrected,56 and revision surgery should be performed. Fracture dynamization through removal of the dis-tal interlocking screws has been contro-versial for the treatment of delayed union and nonunion of pertrochanteric fractures after hip nailing.57 Dynamization is based on the principle that an increase in load and compression across the fracture site may promote and enhance fracture union. In the presence of nonunion, reaming and exchange nailing with a larger-diameter nail is recommended.55-57

Iatrogenic neurovascular injuries may occur intraoperatively during intra-medullary hip nailing for fractures from percutaneous implants insertion or by a displaced bone fragment during the fracture or repair.58-63 It has also been suggested that manipulation of athero-sclerotic vessels of the leg on the fracture table may injure brittle endothelium, rup-ture plaques, and dislodge emboli, lead-ing to an acute ischemic lower extremity necessitating prompt vascular interven-tion.58-65 Iatrogenic vascular injury can be distinguished into hemorrhagic (caused by sharp items such as pins, drill bits, screw tips, and blades) and thrombotic (caused by compression by retractors and forceps).58-61 Presentation may be acute (hemorrhage) or delayed (pseudoaneu-rysm formation).59-61 The profunda femo-ris is most commonly injured.60,61 The artery typically gives rise to 3 perforating arteries that lie close to the linea aspera of the femur and therefore are vulnerable to traumatic or iatrogenic injuries related to femoral fractures and their surgical repair. Selective embolization of the pro-

e113

Copyright © SLACK inCorporAted

n Feature Article

funda femoris artery or its branches is the treatment of choice in cases where the superficial femoris artery is patent. If an obstructed or injured superficial femoris artery is also present, reconstruction of the superficial femoris artery is recom-mended.60 In the case of a femoral pseu-doaneurysm, an endovascular or open repair is necessary.64 Superficial femoris artery injury is less frequent; soft tissue compression at the perineal post and trac-tion of the limb in adduction and internal rotation have been reported as risk factors for iatrogenic superficial femoris artery injury.59,65 Release of lower limb traction and return of the leg to a neutral position as soon as the femoral head lag screw is in place should be performed to withdraw compression, increase superficial femo-ris artery mobility, and reduce the risk of inadvertent iatrogenic injury.59,65 Inferior epigastric vessel avulsion from traction of the leg on the fracture table66 and supe-rior gluteal artery injury from a threaded guidewire used to locate the trochanter-ic entry point67 have been reported. To avoid iatrogenic vascular injuries, blunt dissection to bone prior to drilling and instrumentation should be performed; if any concern for neurovascular injury ex-ists, a limited open approach should be performed, reduction maneuvers on the fracture table should be delicate, and the leg should be returned to the neutral posi-tion after optimal insertion of the femoral head lag screw.58-65

The femoral, sciatic, and superior glu-teal nerves are more commonly injured or compressed by bone fragments,19 het-erotopic ossification,68 or positioning of the patients on the fracture table.69 De-compression of the nerve with removal of the bone fragment and the nail is neces-sary.19,68 The risk of iatrogenic injury to the superior gluteal nerve seems to be higher with the patient in the standard su-pine position on the fracture table than it is with the patient in the lateral position on the fracture table with greater hip flex-ion and adduction.69

conclusionIntramedullary hip nailing for pertro-

chanteric fractures provides a minimally invasive, biologically friendly, and rela-tively safe surgical option for fracture reduction and fixation. It permits early weight bearing and allows fast rehabili-tation; however, it is not without com-plications. The treating surgeons should be aware of these complications, most of which can be precluded and/or corrected intraoperatively. They also should con-sider the fact that nailing for pertrochan-teric fractures is frequently performed by junior staff members; in these cases, close supervision and guidance are necessary for a proper and meticulous surgical tech-nique. The operative setting should be ide-al, preferably in a working-hours operat-ing list under senior supervision with the correct equipment readily available, and with image intensification performed by an experienced radiographer. The patient should be properly and gently positioned on the fracture table, and an optimal re-duction should be obtained by closed means prior to proceeding with implant placement. An optimal entry point should be obtained, and the nail should be gen-tly advanced in the medullary canal. The surgeon should not hesitate to perform a limited open reduction when needed, with the soft tissues around the hip respected. The femoral head lag screw should ideally be positioned central-central in the femo-ral head, and drilling for the distal inter-locking screw should be performed with subtlety. Complete intraoperative imaging with fluoroscopy should be obtained with-out technical compromise in every step of the procedure. Being proactive rather than reactive is necessary.

references 1. Ettinger B, Black DM, Dawson-Hughes B,

Pressman AR, Melton LJ III. Updated frac-ture incidence rates for the US version of FRAX. Osteoporos Int. 2010; 21(1):25-33.

2. Gullberg B, Johnell O, Kanis JA. World-wide projections for hip fracture. Osteoporos Int. 1997; 7(5):407-413.

3. British Orthopaedic Association. The care of patients with fragility fractures. 2007. http://www.fractures.com/pdf/BOA-BGS-Blue-Book.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2015.

4. Parker M, Johansen A. Hip fracture. BMJ. 2006; 333(7557):27-30.

5. Lorich DG, Geller DS, Nielson JH. Osteopo-rotic pertrochanteric hip fractures: manage-ment and current controversies. Instr Course Lect. 2004; 53:441-454.

6. Cumming RG, Nevitt MC, Cummings SR. Epidemiology of hip fractures. Epidemio-logic Reviews. 1997; 19(2):244-257.

7. Anglen JO, Weinstein JN, American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Research C. Nail or plate fixation of intertrochanteric hip frac-tures: changing pattern of practice. A review of the American Board of Orthopaedic Sur-gery database. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008; 90(4):700-707.

8. Rosenblum SF, Zuckerman JD, Kummer FJ, Tam BS. A biomechanical evaluation of the Gamma nail. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992; 74(3):352-357.

9. Davis TR, Sher JL, Horsman A, Simpson M, Porter BB, Checketts RG. Intertrochanteric femoral fractures: mechanical failure after internal fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990; 72(1):26-31.

10. Sadowski C, Lubbeke A, Saudan M, Riand N, Stern R, Hoffmeyer P. Treatment of re-verse oblique and transverse intertrochanteric fractures with use of an intramedullary nail or a 95 degrees screw-plate: a prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002; 84(3):372-381.

11. Utrilla AL, Reig JS, Munoz FM, Tufanisco CB. Trochanteric gamma nail and compres-sion hip screw for trochanteric fractures: a randomized, prospective, comparative study in 210 elderly patients with a new design of the gamma nail. J Orthop Trauma. 2005; 19(4):229-233.

12. Platzer P, Thalhammer G, Wozasek GE, Vecsei V. Femoral shortening after surgical treatment of trochanteric fractures in nonge-riatric patients. J Trauma. 2008; 64(4):982-989.

13. Adams CI, Robinson CM, Court-Brown CM, McQueen MM. Prospective randomized con-trolled trial of an intramedullary nail versus dynamic screw and plate for intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Orthop Trauma. 2001; 15(6):394-400.

14. Parker MJ, Handoll HH. Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010(9):CD000093.

15. National Institute for Health and Clini-cal Excellence. The management of hip fracture in adults (clinical guideline CG124). http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG124. Accessed March 11, 2015.

e114

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016 | Volume 39 • Number 1

n Feature Article

16. Erez O, Dougherty PJ. Early complications associated with cephalomedullary nail for in-tertrochanteric hip fractures. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012; 72(2):E101-E105.

17. Flint JH, Sanchez-Navarro CF, Buckwal-ter JA, Marsh JL. Intrapelvic migration of a gamma nail lag screw: review of the possible mechanisms. Orthopedics. 2010; 33(4).

18. Lohmann H, Esenwein S, Geier B, Vogel T, Kleinert H. False aneurysm of the deep femoral artery due to pertrochanteric frac-ture of the hip with displaced fragment of the lesser trochanter. Z Orthop Unfall. 2009; 147(1):23-25.

19. Rommelmann P. Compression of the femoral nerve by a secondarily dislocated fragment of the lesser trochanter following pertrochan-teric fracture of the femur [in German]. Un-fallchirurg. 2007; 110(7):645-647.

20. McKellop HA, Sigholm G, Redfern FC, Doyle B, Sarmiento A, Luck JV Sr. The ef-fect of simulated fracture-angulations of the tibia on cartilage pressures in the knee joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991; 73(9):1382-1391.

21. Ricci WM, Gallagher B, Haidukewych GJ. Intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft frac-tures: current concepts. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009; 17(5):296-305.

22. Ostrum RF, Marcantonio A, Marburger R. A critical analysis of the eccentric start-ing point for trochanteric intramedullary femoral nailing. J Orthop Trauma. 2005; 19(10):681-686.

23. Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM, Keggi JM. The value of the tip-apex distance in predicting failure of fixation of peritrochanteric fractures of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995; 77(7):1058-1064.

24. Wu CC, Shih CH, Chen WJ, Tai CL. Treat-ment of cutout of a lag screw of a dynamic hip screw in an intertrochanteric fracture. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1998; 117(4-5):193-196.

25. Bojan AJ, Beimel C, Speitling A, Taglang G, Ekholm C, Jonsson A. 3066 consecutive gamma nails: 12 years experience at a single centre. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010; 11:133.

26. Bojan AJ, Beimel C, Taglang G, Collin D, Ekholm C, Jonsson A. Critical factors in cut-out complication after Gamma Nail treatment of proximal femoral fractures. BMC Muscu-loskelet Disord. 2013; 14:1.

27. Kyle RF, Gustilo RB, Premer RF. Analysis of six hundred and twenty-two intertrochanteric hip fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979; 61(2):216-221.

28. Baumgaertner MR, Solberg BD. Aware-ness of tip-apex distance reduces failure of fixation of trochanteric fractures of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997; 79(6):969-971.

29. Bhandari M, Schemitsch E, Jonsson A, Zlo-

wodzki M, Haidukewych GJ. Gamma nails revisited: gamma nails versus compression hip screws in the management of inter-trochanteric fractures of the hip. A meta- analysis. J Orthop Trauma. 2009; 23(6):460-464.

30. Norris R, Bhattacharjee D, Parker MJ. Oc-currence of secondary fracture around in-tramedullary nails used for trochanteric hip fractures: a systematic review of 13,568 pa-tients. Injury. 2012; 43(6):706-711.

31. Roberts JW, Libet LA, Wolinsky PR. Who is in danger? Impingement and penetration of the anterior cortex of the distal femur dur-ing intramedullary nailing of proximal femur fractures: preoperatively measurable risk factors. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012; 73(1):249-254.

32. Ostrum RF, Levy MS. Penetration of the dis-tal femoral anterior cortex during intramed-ullary nailing for subtrochanteric fractures: a report of three cases. J Orthop Trauma. 2005; 19(9):656-660.

33. Pires RE, Santana EO Jr, Santos LE, Giorda-no V, Balbachevsky D, Dos Reis FB. Failure of fixation of trochanteric femur fractures: clinical recommendations for avoiding Z- effect and reverse Z-effect type complica-tions. Patient Saf Surg. 2011; 5:17.

34. Strauss EJ, Kummer FJ, Koval KJ, Egol KA. The “Z-effect” phenomenon defined: a laboratory study. J Orthop Res. 2007; 25(12):1568-1573.

35. Al-yassari G, Langstaff RJ, Jones JW, Al-Lami M. The AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail (PFN) for the treatment of unstable trochanteric femoral fracture. Injury. 2002; 33(5):395-399.

36. Rebuzzi E, Pannone A, Schiavetti S, et al. IMHS clinical experience in the treatment of peritrochanteric fractures: the results of a multicentric Italian study of 981 cases. In-jury. 2002; 33(5):407-412.

37. Tauber M, Resch H. Sigmoid perforation af-ter medial migration of lag screw in gamma nailing. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2006; 126(2):118-122.

38. Horas U, Ernst S. Medial dislocation of hip screw following internal fixation of a pertro-chanteric metastasis in the femur with gam-ma nails [in German]. Unfallchirurg. 2008; 111(9):746-748.

39. Werner-Tutschku W, Lajtai G, Schmiedhuber G, Lang T, Pirkl C, Orthner E. Intra- and peri-operative complications in the stabilization of per- and subtrochanteric femoral fractures by means of PFN [in German]. Unfallchirurg. 2002; 105(10):881-885.

40. Weil YA, Gardner MJ, Mikhail G, Pierson G, Helfet DL, Lorich DG. Medial migration of intramedullary hip fixation devices: a biome-chanical analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2008; 128(2):227-234.

41. Takasago T, Goto T, Toki S, et al. Intrapel-

vic migration of the lag screw in intramed-ullary nailing. Case Rep Orthop. 2014; 2014:519045.

42. Heinz T, Vecsei V. Complications and errors in use of the gamma nail: causes and preven-tion [in German]. Chirurg. 1994; 65(11):943-952.

43. Strecker W, Suger G, Kinzl L. Local com-plications of intramedullary nailing [in Ger-man]. Der Orthopade. 1996; 25(3):274-291.

44. Young S, Lie SA, Hallan G, Zirkle LG, Enge-saeter LB, Havelin LI. Risk factors for infec-tion after 46,113 intramedullary nail opera-tions in low- and middle-income countries. World J Surg. 2013; 37(2):349-355.

45. Yokoyama K, Uchino M, Nakamura K, et al. Risk factors for deep infection in secondary intramedullary nailing after external fixa-tion for open tibial fractures. Injury. 2006; 37(6):554-560.

46. Malik MH, Harwood P, Diggle P, Khan SA. Factors affecting rates of infection and non-union in intramedullary nailing. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004; 86(4):556-560.

47. Berkes M, Obremskey WT, Scannell B, et al. Maintenance of hardware after early post-operative infection following fracture inter-nal fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010; 92(4):823-828.

48. Patzakis MJ, Zalavras CG. Chronic posttrau-matic osteomyelitis and infected nonunion of the tibia: current management concepts. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2005; 13(6):417-427.

49. Henry SL, Ostermann PA, Seligson D. The prophylactic use of antibiotic impregnated beads in open fractures. J Trauma. 1990; 30(10):1231-1238.

50. Thonse R, Conway JD. Antibiotic cement-coated nails for the treatment of infected non-unions and segmental bone defects. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008; 90(suppl 4):163-174.

51. Heikkinen T, Partanen J, Ristiniemi J, Jalovaara P. Evaluation of 238 consecu-tive patients with the extended data set of the Standardised Audit for Hip Fractures in Europe (SAHFE). Disabil Rehabil. 2005; 27(18-19):1107-1115.

52. Griffin XL, Costa ML, Parsons N, Smith N. Electromagnetic field stimulation for treat-ing delayed union or non-union of long bone fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011(4):CD008471.

53. SPRINT Investigators, Bhandari M, Guy-att G, et al. Study to prospectively evaluate reamed intramedullary nails in patients with tibial fractures (S.P.R.I.N.T.): study rationale and design. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008; 9:91.

54. Hak DJ, Lee SS, Goulet JA. Success of ex-change reamed intramedullary nailing for femoral shaft nonunion or delayed union. J Orthop Trauma. 2000; 14(3):178-182.

55. Lam SW, Teraa M, Leenen LP, van der Hei-

e115

Copyright © SLACK inCorporAted

n Feature Article

jden GJ. Systematic review shows lowered risk of nonunion after reamed nailing in pa-tients with closed tibial shaft fractures. In-jury. 2010; 41(7):671-675.

56. Brinker MR, O’Connor DP, Monla YT, Earthman TP. Metabolic and endocrine ab-normalities in patients with nonunions. J Or-thop Trauma. 2007; 21(8):557-570.

57. Wu CC. The effect of dynamization on slow-ing the healing of femur shaft fractures af-ter interlocking nailing. J Trauma. 1997; 43(2):263-267.

58. Rajaesparan K, Amin A, Arora S, Walton NP. Pseudoaneurysm of a branch of the profunda femoris artery following distal locking of an intramedullary hip nail: an unusual anatomi-cal location. Hip Int. 2008; 18(3):231-235.

59. Grimaldi M, Courvoisier A, Tonetti J, Vouail-lat H, Merloz P. Superficial femoral artery injury resulting from intertrochanteric hip fracture fixation by a locked intramedul-lary nail. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009; 95(5):380-382.

60. Patelis N, Koutsoumpelis A, Papoutsis K,

et al. Iatrogenic injury of profunda femoris artery branches after intertrochanteric hip screw fixation for intertrochanteric femoral fracture: a case report and literature review. Case Rep Vasc Med. 2014; 2014:694235.

61. Chong KC, Yap EC, Lam KS, Low BY. Pro-funda femoris artery pseudoaneurysm pre-senting with triad of thigh swelling, bleed-ing and anaemia. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2004; 33(2):267-269.

62. Laohapoonrungsee A, Sirirungruangsarn Y, Arpornchayanon O. Pseudoaneurysm of profunda femoris artery following inter-nal fixation of intertrochanteric fracture: two case reports. J Med Assoc Thai. 2005; 88(11):1703-1706.

63. Moreyra CE, Lavernia CJ, Cooke CC. Late vascular injury following intertrochanteric fracture reduction with sliding hip screw. J Surg Orthop Adv. 2004; 13(3):170-173.

64. Jindal R, Dhanjil S, Carrol T, Wolfe JH. Per-cutaneous thrombin injection treatment of a profunda femoris pseudoaneurysm after femoral neck fracture. J Vasc Interv Radiol.

2004; 15(11):1335-1336.

65. Yang KH, Park HW, Park SJ. Pseudoaneurysm of the superficial femoral artery after closed hip nailing with a Gamma nail: report of a case. J Orthop Trauma. 2002; 16(2):124-127.

66. Haddad FS, Cobiella CE, Wilson L. Infe-rior epigastric artery avulsion: a fracture table complication. J Orthop Trauma. 1998; 12(8):587-588.

67. Ward JP, Strauss EJ, Tejwani NC. Injury to the superior gluteal artery during intramed-ullary fixation of an atypical subtrochanteric stress fracture: a case report. Bull Hosp Joint Dis. 2013; 71(4):297-300.

68. Niempoog S, Chumchuen S. Acute closed traumatic sciatic nerve injury: a complication of heterotopic ossification and prominence of the femoral nail. A case report. J Med Assoc Thai. 2014; 97(suppl 8):S213-S216.

69. Ozsoy MH, Basarir K, Bayramoglu A, Er-demli B, Tuccar E, Eksioglu MF. Risk of superior gluteal nerve and gluteus medius muscle injury during femoral nail insertion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(4):829-834.

e116