Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 28146

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dematolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2012 | Month : February | Volume : 6 | Issue : 1 | Page : 76 - 80

Fixation of Subtrochanteric Fracture of the Femur: Our Experience

Chakraborty M.K., Thapa P.

1. Prof & HOD, Orthopaedics Department, Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhara, Nepal. 2. Resident, Orthopaedics Department, Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhara, Nepal. PLACE OF STUDY: Orthopaedic Dept, Manipal Teaching Hospital, Pokhara, Nepal.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Chakraborty M.K.
Prof & HOD, Orthopaedics Department,
Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhara, Nepal.
Phone: 00977-9726155900
E-mail: drmkc2010@yahoo.com

Abstract

Introduction: Subtrochanteric fracture of the femur is a variant of the peritrochanteric fracture of the femur. It extends upto 5 cm below the lesser trochanter. The incidence is relatively much lower (3.9% of all the proximal femoral fractures). It is common in the older population with low energy trauma along with osteoporosis and in younger patients with high energy trauma. This is also the commonest site for a pathological fracture. Pathophysiological and biomechanical studies have shown that the subtrochanteric region is the most stressed area which concentrates stress on the implant and this is difficult to treat due to complications. With the improved knowledge and understanding of the fracture pattern, specific treatment options with successful results of improved quality may be obtained.
Material and Methods: A total of 12 cases of subtrochanteric fracture of the femur which were admitted in the Orthopaedic Dept, Manipal Teaching Hospital, Pokhara, Nepal, from Jan, 2010 to July, 2011, were selected in our study. The classification of the fracture was done by using the Russell and Taylor’s classification for simplicity and it is the one which is currently mostly used for clinical use. Various implants like locking plate, proximal femoral nail (PFN), dynamic hip screw (DHS) and K-nail were used for fracture fixation. Clinical and radiographic analyses were done at a follow up of 3 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year.
Results: Out of 12 cases, 9 were males and 3 were female.s K-nail fixation was done in one case of pathological fracture. Three locking plates, 4 DHS and 4 PFN were done. All the fractures united with good to excellent results, with few complications like mild restriction of the hip range of motion, mild varus deformity and a shortening of 2 cm.
Conclusion: With the various choices of implants for the fixation of subtrochanteric fracture of the femur, PFN, in our opinion, gave the best fixation with excellent results. We recommend PFN as a reliable cephalomedullary implant for the fixation of subtrochanteric fracture of the femur.

Keywords

Sub-trochanteric fracture, Femur, Proximal Femoral Nail, Fixation

INTRODUCTION :-
Subtrochanteric fracture of the femur is a variant of peritrochanteric fracture of the femur (1). It lies in the area which is 5cm below the lesser trochanter. It may extend proximally into the intertrochanteric area and distally upto the isthmus of the shaft of the femur (2), (3). Its incidence is much lower than that of the intra and extra capsular fracture of the neck of the femur. The incidence usually is six per 1 lack population per year, with a female preponderance (4). Parker et al. reviewed the epidemiology of Subtrochanteric fracture of the femur and showed that it accounted for 3.9% of all the proximal femoral fractures and that the average age was 74 yrs (5). It is common in older patients after low energy trauma along with osteoporosis and in younger patients with high energy trauma (6). This area is also the commonest site for pathological femoral fractures (17%) due to metastatic deposits from the lung, breast, prostate, myeloma and Paget’s disease (4). The mechanism of the injury is fall and direct lateral hip trauma, road traffics accidents, axial loading, fall form height and gunshot injury (7). Subtrochanteric fracture is one of the most difficult fractures to treat and treatment failure is common for it, due to the complications of mal-union, non-union, shortening, angular deformity and rotational mal-union (Waddel 1979, Mullaji and Thomas 1993) (8),(9). It is associated with a mortality or morbidity of 20% because of the maximum stress which is exerted at the fracture site during the activities of daily living, as compared to the rest of the femoral fractures (4). An appropriate implant for internal fixation and implant failure remains debatable.
Pathophysiology :-
The muscle of the proximal femur displaces the fracture and the bone is cortical. Healing in this region is achieved through a primary cortical healing and it is slow to consolidate (10). The axial loading forces through the hip joint create a large moment arm with large lateral tensile and medial compressive loads. The muscle forces of the hip also play torsional and rotational shear forces. This area is highly vascular and so the bleeding in the thigh is common, leading to shock and the compartmental syndrome. During normal activities, 6 times of the body weight is transferred across this region (11).
Biomechanical :-
Studies During weight bearing, mechanical stress acts on the femur. The compression stress is >1200 lb/sq inch in the medial Subtrochanteric area and 3cm distal to the lesser trochanter. The lateral tensile stress is 20% less at 1000 lb/sq inch (4). There is continuous stress on the implant system, even during bed rest .So, the attention of the medial cortical buttress is required to minimise the implant failure. Higher forces are generated with eccentrically placed devices such as plates and screws, as compared to the centromedullary devices. Rotational shear forces may lead to implant failure due to cyclical loading. Plate and screw devices restored approximately 40% of the normal femoral torsional stiffness. Interlocking nails are better in bending stiffness than the hip compression screws. There was a marked improvement in the bending stiffness, torsional stiffness and the axial load to failure with the closed section interlocking devices (12). Bending forces cause the medial cortex to be loaded in compression and the lateral cortex to be loaded in tension. The compression forces are much higher than the tensile forces and they are therefore mandatory in restoring the medial cortex stability. 2mm separation of the medial cortex will lead to medial collapse and lateral plate bending. The more communition, the less the bio-mechanical stability and the more the bio-mechanical loading, the more the communition. When the medial cortical support is inadequate, the internal fixation devices act as tension band in the lateral femoral cortex and the loads are concentrated in one area of the implant, thus resulting in implant failure or loss of fixation (13).
Relevant Anatomy :-
The Subtrochanteric region is a cortical bone. Femoral head antiverted 13°, piriformis fossa at the base of the neck. The lesser trochanter is posterior medial and the iliopsoas muscles are inserted on it, which flexes the proximal fracture fragment. The gluteus medius and the minimus abduct and externally rotate the proximal fragment. The adductors pull the distal fragment medially and upward. The muscles are highly vascularised and can lead to haemorrhage during injury or surgical procedures. The vastus lateralis is splinted close to the perforating branches of the profunda femoris artery, which may get injured, leading to bleeding with difficult exposure (14).
Classification :-
Because of the fracture configuration and the patient heterogeneity no universally accepted classification exists (14). Many classification systems have been proposed, but Seinsheimer’s (1978) and Russell and Taylor’s (1992) classifications have been used most commonly. The treatment of the Subtrochanteric fracture has been revolutionised by the development of the long reconstruction nail which was previously difficult to treat. The Russell and Taylor classification has Type I and Type II fractures with sub groups A and B in both. The Type I fracture does not extend into the piriformis fossa. The Type II fracture extends to the greater trochanter and it involves the piriformis fossa. The Type IA fracture line is below the lesser trochanter and the Type IB extension involves the lesser trochanter. The Type IIA fracture extends to the piriformis fossa and the Type IIB fracture involves the piriformis fossa and it extends to the medial femoral cortex and the loss of continuity of the lesser trochanter (1). The classification is biomechanically sound, it fulfils the criteria best and it was designed to allow the selection of the technique of the internal fixation that produces the most biomechanically sound reconstruction (4). The extent of involvement of the lesser trochanter, the greater trochanter and the piriformis fossa were taken into consideration. Seinsheimer’s classification is based on the number of fragments and the location and configuration of the fracture line. It classifies the fractures as Type I to type V (15).
Treatment Protocol :-
Surgical stabilization is the treatment of choice, but it is technically challenging. The treatment goals are – anatomical alignment, restoration of the length, rotation with good fixation, prevention of the varus deformity, maintainence of the lever arm of the abduction muscle and encouraging early mobilization and rehabilitation.
Role of the bone graft:
Bone graft should be advised as a routine procedure in comminuted fracture with lack of medial and posterior cortical continuity. It helps in protecting the fixation device from the varus deformity which is caused due to lack of medial cortical continuity (2). Implants which are used conventionally:
1. Intramedullary – Centromedullary nail (conventional interlocking nails) and Cephalomedullary (PFN/IMHS).
2. Plate osteosynthesis – 135° screw plate (DHS), 95° dynamic condylar screw (DCS) and 95° angle condylar blade plate. Advantages of the IM devices over the
Nail blade plate:(13)
1. Shorter lever arm – so it is biomechanically stronger and the stress on the implant is less
2. Load sharing device instead of load bearing –less stress on the implant
3. Can be introduced without exposing the fracture site –fracture haematoma not disturbed, hence chances of the union are more and faster.
4. Transmits weight close to the calcar and has greater mechanical strength.
5. Distal locking screw provides length and rotational control and early weight bearing.
The variables which have to be considered while making the choice of the implant are:
1. Fracture extension to the piriformis fossa-common nail entry portal.
2. Continuity of the lesser trochanter. The predisposing risk factors are: Degree of comminution, involvement of the lesser and greater trochanter and the severity of osteoporosis.
Advantages of the Medullary Technique: Retained blood supply to the fragment, less operative blood loss and less disruption of the fracture environment and cephalomedullary nailing allows length and rotational control. Treatment Algorithm: An appropriate implant for internal fixation is still debatable (3)
Type IA: Conventional intramedullary inter-locking nail or long cephalomedullary reconstruction nail.
Type IB: Long cephalomedullary reconstruction nail.
Type II: Plate osteosynthesis by using one of these implants- long DHS, 95° DCS, 95° angle blade plate and locking plate. Long DHS+bone grafting is the treatment of choice (4). Treatment of the fracture at the level of the lesser trochanter – DHS is satisfactory.

Material and Methods

A total of 12 cases of Subtrochanteric fracture of the femur were admitted in the Manipal Teaching Hospital, Pokhara, in the Department of Orthopaedics from Jan 2010 to July 2011. Out of these 12 patients, 9 were males and 3 were females. Their ages ranged from 10 to 78 years (average age 47.25 years). We used the Russell Taylor classification for simplicity and it is the one which is currently used mostly. There were 4 types of fractures- Type I A, 4- Type IB, 2- Type IIA and 2- Type IIB fractures. Of these, 4 were left sided and 8 were right sided. The mechanism of the injury included one pathological fracture following fall, 8 were due to motor vehicular injury and 3 were due to low energy trauma.One patient with a pathological fracture had a unicameral bone cyst fixed with a K-nail. Three locking plates are used in one Type IA and two Type IIB cases and the cerclage wire was used in two cases with bone graft. Four DHSs were used, 2 in each Type IA and I B fractures. Four PFNs were used in two Type IB and two Type IIA fractures and a cerclage wire was used to hold the fracture fragment in position. As per our protocol, we removed the suture after 14 days. We allowed the operated cases to stand and walk with non weight bearing and with bi-lateral axillary crutches after 2 weeks to 3 weeks. After 3 weeks, we allowed partial weight bearing, followed by full weight bearing after 6 weeks for PFN fixation. For plate fixation, the weight bearing was delayed; non weight bearing was advised for a period of 6 weeks. Partial weight bearing was advised when the patient could tolerate it without pain, with bi-lateral axillary crutches. Full weight bearing was delayed for 3 months. Radiographs were taken at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6months and 1 year. Strengthening exercises for the quadriceps, hamstrings and the gluteal muscles were done in bed and out of bed under the supervision of a physiotherapist. The range of motion of the hip and knee was examined during the follow-ups. The post operative patients were followed up for one and a half years.

Results

The distribution of the age, sex and the sides are shown in the (Table/Fig 1). The average age of the female patients was 60 years and it was 43 years for the males. One patient with pathological fracture was of 10 years of age . Bone graft was done in 3 locking plate fixation and one PFN cases. Cerclage wiring was done in 2 locking plate and two PFN cases. (Table/Fig 2) shows the type of fixation, the type of fracture, the no. of cases, the union time in months, the ROM of the hip and the functional outcome and thecomplications. LP-locking plate, DHS-Dynamic hip screw, PFN- proximal femoral nail, ROM-range of motion. Radiologically, the average time of the union for the Locking plate was 4- 5.5 months, for DHS,it was 3-4 months, for PFN, it was 3- 3.5 months and for K-nail, it was 3 months. ROM of the hip in the case of pathological fracture was mild to moderate pain with restriction up to 7 months and in the case of locking plate, there was mild restriction of up to 6 months. There is a mild varus deformity in one case of locking plate and a shortening of 2 cm in K-nail for pathological fracture. The functional outcome varied from good to excellent in all our cases.

Discussion

In modern trauma care, there is no role of conservative treatment, as was advocated by Delee et al (16). The treatment of Subtrochanteric fractures was mainly focussed on ORIF by using various implants with or without bone graft and cerclage wiring (7). Plating was blamed for extensive surgical exposure, severe soft tissue damage, severe blood loss, non-union and implant failure. Eccentrically, plating usually resulted in fatigue breakage due to a mechanical load shearing effect. Intramedullary nailing had a more biological and mechanical advantage and it was accepted as an implant of choice without the complications of cut out, breakage of the implant or peri-implant fracture. Osteosynthesis, like MIPPO, LISS and LCP, is gaining popularity nowadays (3). Most important for success is the correct entry point; the laterally shifted entry point should be on the top of the greater trochanter in the AP view and in line in the centre of the femoral canal in the lateral view. Long/Spiral fracture needs open reduction with cerclage wiring. In our series, we used cephalomedullary IL nailing PFN for more stability, locking plates for more communited fracture and extramedullary devices like DHS for Type I A and B in the cases, with quite satisfactory results. The overall result of the locking plate was not satisfactory because of the longer duration which it took for healing and mild varus deformity. Long PFNs, as implants of choice, healed the fractures uneventfully and the walking and squatting abilities were completely restored with the bone union. The lag screw of the PFN should be placed in the lower part of the femoral neck, close to the femoral calcar, with the screw tip reaching the subchondral bone, 5-10 mm below the articular cartilage in the AP view. In the lateral view, it should be placed in the centre of the femoral neck. The timing of the weight bearing will be partial up to 6 weeks, to allow callus formation. Full weight bearing can be advised after 12 weeks if the lesser trochanter is attached to the proximal fragment. The interlocking nail is preferred because there is a better control of the rotation and the length can be confirmed by biomechanical and clinical studies. Load sharing devices allow compression at the fracture site, with good results. Intramedullary fixation of Subtrochanteric fractures with the Proximal Femoral Nail (PFN) – is a reliable implant, leading to good union and less soft tissue damage. It has a biomechanical advantage, but it is a technically demanding operation. Long PFN fixation, irrespective of the degree of proximal comminution, is preferable and the cephalomedullary nail with a greater lateral offset, allows the entry portal more laterally, irrespective of the involvement of the piriformis fossa. It is also clear that the overall results of IM nailing are better than those of plate fixation, according to Parker et al (1997) (3). Intramedullary Hip screw (IMHS) is a better design; it buttresses the head and neck, temporarily substituting for the unstable, large posterior medial fragment. Because of the femoral re-fracture rates in zickel nail and the femoral shaft fractures in gamma nail, they are discontinued. The cut-out failure of the RT nail is a well recognized complication. A long reconstruction nail with a single side arm still remains one of the optimum methods of fixation of Subtrochanteric fractures (4). Complications like non-union, failure of the implant, infection, and heterotrophic ossification were not encountered in our series,expect for the mild to moderate painful restriction of the ROM of the hip in one case, mild varus deformity in one case and the shortening of 2 cm in cases with pathological fractures.

Conclusion

In our study, there was only a small group of patients and there were drop out cases in the follow up. Our experience of fixation with various devices showed that PFN gave a better control of the rotation, length and proximal purchase. The load shearing nature of this implant which allowed compression at the fracture site and even in the osteoporotic bone and its cephalomedullary location had decreased moments as compared to the plate. So, we recommend the cephalomedullary PFN as one of the better methods of fixation than plate osteosynthesis. DHS with a long barrel plate and the Centromedullary locking nail are quite satisfactory. Bone grafts should be routine procedures with comminuted fracture, with lack of posterior-medial cortical continuity. Despite the introduction of newer designs, better quality of the implant and improvement in the technique, fixation is still a challenge for the orthopaedic surgeons. Search for an ideal implant and an ideal method of fixation in this complex situation is still going on.

References

1.
Canale ST, Beaty JH, Fractures and Dislocations of the Hip. In: Lavelle DG Editor. Campbell’s operative orthopaedics. 11th ed. Mosby Elsevier: 2007; 3262-70.
2.
Clifford R. Subtrochanteric Fracture. Wheeless Text Book of Orthopaedics. [last updated: 30/06/2011. Available form: http://www. wheelessonline.com/ortho/Subtrochanteric_fractures
3.
Jiang LS, Shen L, Dai LY. Intramedullary fixation of Subtrochanteric fractures with a long proximal femoral nail or a gamma nail: Technical notes and preliminary results. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2007; 36:821-26.
4.
Court-Brown C M, Alho A, Robinson CM. Subtrochanteric fracture. In: Court-Brown CM Editor. Musculoskeletal Trauma Series Femur, Arnold, 2002; 88-95.
5.
Parker MJ, Dutta BK, Sivaji C, Pryor GA. Subtrochanteric fracture of the. Injury 1997; 28: 91-95.
6.
Bucholz RW, Heckman JD, Court-Brown, Charles M. Subtrochanteric Fractures. In Leung KS Editor. Rockwood and Green’s Fractures in Adults. 6th ed. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2006;1828-44.
7.
Rijal KP, Manandhar RR, Pandey BK. Subtrochanteric fractures of the femur: Result of ORIF at KMCTH. Kathmandu University Medical Journal. 2007; 5(18):161-65.
8.
Waddell JP. Subtrochanteric fracture of the femur: a review of 130 patients. J Trauma 1979; 19: 582-92.
9.
Mullaji AB, Thomas TL. Low energy Subtrochanteric fracture in an elderly patient: result of fixation with a sliding screw plate. J Trauma 1993; 34: 56-61.
10.
Perren SM. Evolution of the internal fixation of long bone fractures. The scientific basis of biological internal fixation: choosing a new balance between stability and biology. J Bone Joint Surg Br. Nov 2002; 84(8):1093-110. [Pubmed].
11.
Bergmann G, Graichen F, Rohlmann A. Hip joint loading during walking and running, as was measured in two patients. J Biomech. Aug 1993; 26(8):969-90. [Pubmed].
12.
Crenshaw A. Fractures of the Hip and Pelvis. In: Russel TA Editor. Campbell’s operative orthopaedics. 8th ed.USA, Mosby; 2007; 3262-70.
13.
Taneja DK. Subtrochanteric fracture-Recent advances in management. In Taneja DK. Recent trend in Fracture management. 2001.p39-43.
14.
Jaffe W L, Editor. Subtrochanteric Hip Fractures. Medscape reference. [Update: Jul14, 2010]. Available from: http://emedicine.medscape. com/article/1247329-overview#a0101
15.
Seinsheimer F III: Subtrochanteric fractures of the femur, J Bone Joint Surg 1978; 60A:300.
16.
DeLee JC, Clanton To, Rockwood CA Jr. Closed treatment of Subtrochanteric fracture of the femur in a modified cast-brace. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1981; 63:773-79.

DOI and Others

ID: JCDR/2012/3422:1826

FINANCIAL OR OTHER COMPETING INTERESTS: NONE.

Date of Submission: Oct 12, 2011
Date of Peer Review: Nov 12, 2011
Date of Acceptance: Dec 26, 2011
Date of Publishing: Feb 15, 2012

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com