header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

Trauma

CT EVALUATION OF FEMORAL TROCHANTERIC FRCATURES

International Society for Fracture Repair (ISFR)



Abstract

Fracture classification of femoral trochanteric fracture is usually based on plain X-ray. However, complications such as delayed union, non-union, and cut out are seen in stable fracture on X-ray. In this study, fracture was classified by 3D-CT and relationship to X-ray classification was investigated.

48 femoral trochanteric fractures (15 males, 33 female, average age: 82.6) treated with PFNA-II were investigated.

Fracture was classified to 2part, 3part(5 subgroups), and 4part with combination of 4 fragments in CT; Head (H), Greater trochanter (G), Lesser trochanter (L), and Shaft (S). 5 subgroups of 3 part fracture were (1) H+G (S: small fragment) + L-S, (2) H + G (B:big fragment) + L-S, (3) H + G-L + S, (4) H + G (W:whole) + S, and (5) H + L + G-S. Numbers of each group were as follows; 2 part: 11, 3 part (1) : 7, 3 part (2) : 12, 3 part (3) : 10, 3 part (4) : 2, 3 part (5) : 3, 4 part : 3. 3 part (3), (4), (5) and 4 part are considered as unstable, however, 6 cases in these groups were classified in A1–1 or A1–2 stable fracture in AO classification. 10 fractures in Evans and 5 fractures in Jensen classification classified as stable were unstable in CT evaluation.

It is sometimes very difficult to classify the femoral trochanteric fracture by plain X-ray. Classification with 3D-CT is very useful to distinguish which fracture is stable or unstable.