Abstract
Sub-trochanteric femoral fractures present a challenging situation to the orthopaedic surgeons. There are many implants for fixation of subtrochanteric fractures. In this study we analyze the functional and radiological outcome of subtrochanteric fractures treated by Reconstruction nails. Irrespective of the implant used, it is important to get a good medial bone support by anatomical reduction, with cortical bone continuity, to prevent varus malunion. We concluded that Reconstruction nail is an ideal implant for Subtrochanteric fractures.
Key Words: Subtrochanteric fracture, Reconstruction nail
References
1. Pugh KJ, Morgan RA: A mechanical comparison of subtrochanteric femur fracture fixation. J Orthop Trauma 12: No 5: 324 – 329; 1998.
2. Seinsheimer F: Subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg 60 – A: 300 – 306; 1978.
3. Asheesh Bedi, MD, T.Toan Le MD: Subtrochanteric femur fractures. Orthop Clin North Am 35: 473 – 483; 2004.
4. Kinast C, Bolhofner BR, Mast JW, Ganz R: Subtrochanteric fractures of the femur, results of 95* Condylar blade plate. Clin Orthop 238: 122 – 130; 1989.
5. Nungu KS, Olerud C, Rehnberg L: Treatment of subtrochanteric fracture with A O dynamic condylar screw. Injury; 24(2); 90 – 92: Feb 1993.
6. Sims SH: Subtrochnteric femoral fractures. Orthop Clin North Am 33: (1): 113 – 126,Jan 2002.
7. Tidermark J, Hamberg P: Extramedulary fixation of 107 subtrochanteric fractures. Acta Orthop Scand 70; (5); 459-466; 1999.
8. Schatzker J: Text book of “Rationale of operative orthopaedics”. 1: 349 – 386.
9. Cochran GVB: Implantation of strain gauges in bone in vivo. J Biomechanics 5: 119; 1972.
10. Feilding JW, Cochran GVB, Zickel RE: Biomechanical characteristics and surgical management of Subtrochanteric fractures. Orthop Clin North Am 5: 629-650;1974.
11. Koch JC: The laws of bone architecture. Am J Anat 21: 177 – 298; 1917.
12. Frankel V, Burstein A: Orthopaedic biomechanics. Lea and Febiger Philadelphia Lea& Febiger; 1970.
13. French BG: Use of an interlocked cephalomedullary nail for subtrochanteric fracture stabilization. Clin Orthop 348: 95 – 100; 1998.
14. MAJ Taylor DC: treatment of comminuted subtrochanteric femoral fractures in a young population with a reconstruction nail. Mil Med 161: 735 – 738; Dec 1996.
15. Hoover GK, Browner BD: Initial experience with a second generation locking femoral nail. The Russell – Taylor reconstruction nail. Contemp Orthop 23: 199 – 208; 1991.
Corresponding Author
Ashish Jose
Department of Orthopaedics, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & Research
Institute, Pondicherry, India
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v3i8.08
