RESUMEN
Although numerous radiologic parameters of abnormal hip joint morphology are utilized in practice, studies on the relation of these parameters to acetabular fractures are limited. This study hypothesized that certain morphological features of hip joints are associated with acetabular posterior wall (PW) fracture patterns and aimed to identify morphological characteristics predictive of acetabular PW fracture. The records of 107 consecutive patients, who were diagnosed with acetabular fractures in a level I trauma center from August 2017 to April 2021, were initially reviewed. After excluding patients who lacked proper radiographic evaluation and had previous surgery or concomitant injury on the ipsilateral lower limb, a total of 99 patients were analyzed to investigate the morphological characteristics of the hip joint, measured in computed tomography, associated with acetabular posterior wall fracture. We included patient demographics, acetabular index (AI), sharp angle, acetabular depth-to-width ratio (AD/WR), center-edge angle (CEA), head-neck offset ratio (HNOR), acetabular head index (AHI), anterior acetabular sector angle (AASA), posterior acetabular sector angle (PASA), and acetabular version angle (AVA) in the univariate and multivariate analyses. The injury mechanism (p = 0.001) and AD/WR (p = 0.021) were predictors of PW fracture in the univariate analysis. In the multivariable analysis, injury mechanism (p = 0.011), AI (coefficient B = 0.320; Exp (B) = 1.377; p = 0.017), and AD/WR (coefficient B = 33.047; Exp (B) = 2.250 × 1014; p = 0.028) were significant predictors of PW fracture. This study highlights the importance of morphological factors, such as a larger AI and AD/WR, that may influence joint stress distribution, resulting in acetabular PW fracture. Understanding these pathomechanisms may protect the hip joint and prevent future injuries through the early identification and treatment of pathological conditions.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Although a concomitant ipsilateral femoral neck and intertrochanteric fracture has been considered to be a rare type of injury, its incidence has been increasing, especially among elderly hip fracture patients. However, there is limited evidence on the optimal treatment option. This study surveys surgical outcomes of different implants in order to assist in selecting the best possible implant for a combined femoral neck and intertrochanteric fracture. METHODS: The postoperative complications after the treatment of a concomitant ipsilateral femoral neck and intertrochanteric fracture via cephalomedullary nail (CMN), dynamic hip screw (DHS), and hip arthroplasty groups were analyzed by retrospectively reviewing the electronic medical records of 115 consecutive patients. RESULTS: The patient demographics and perioperative details showed no significant discrepancies amongst different surgical groups, except for the operative time; a CMN had the shortest mean operative time (standard deviation) of 85.6 min (31.1), followed by 94.7 min (22.3) during a DHS, and 107.3 min (37.2) during an HR (p = 0.021). Of the 84 osteosynthesis patients, 77 (91.7%) achieved a fracture union. Only one (3.2%) of the 31 HR cases had a dislocation. The sub-analysis of the different osteosynthesis methods showed a higher incidence of excessive sliding and the nonunion of the fracture fragment in the DHS group than that in the CMN group (p = 0.004 and p = 0.022, respectively). The different surgical methods did not significantly vary in other outcome variables, such as the re-operation rate, mortality, and hip function. CONCLUSIONS: For the surgical treatment of combined femoral neck and trochanteric fractures, osteosynthesis did not differ significantly from an HR in terms of the overall postoperative complications, reoperation and mortality rate, and hip function, however, the risk of nonunion and more mechanical complications should be considered when choosing a DHS. Our suggestion for the treatment of a femoral neck and ipsilateral trochanteric fracture is that a surgeon should choose wisely between an HR and a CMN depending on the patient's age, the displacement of the femoral neck, and one's expertise.