Femoral Shaft Fractures Robert F. Ostrum, MD Cooper University

Femoral Shaft Fractures Robert F. Ostrum, MD Cooper University Hospital Camden, New Jersey Created March 2004; Revised June 2006: Revised 11/09

Femur Fractures Common injury due to major violent trauma 1 femur fracture/ 10,000 people More common in people 25 yo or 65 yo Femur fracture leads to reduced activity for 107 days, the average length of hospital stay is 25 days Motor vehicle, motorcycle, auto-pedestrian, aircraft, and gunshot wound accidents are most frequent causes

Anatomy Long tubular bone, anterior bow, flair at femoral condyles Blood supply – Metaphyseal vessels – Single nutrient artery in diaphysis enters through the linea aspera – Nutrient artery communicates with medullary arteries in intramedullary canal – Medullary arteries supply 2/3 of endosteal blood supply

Blood Supply Reaming destroys intramedullary endosteal blood supply Periosteal blood flow increases Medullary blood supply is re-established over 8-12 weeks if spaces left in canal by implant Unreamed intramedullary nailing decreases blood flow less; restoration of endosteal blood flow earlier but equal to reamed canal at 12 weeks

Femur Fracture Classification AO/OTA Femur Diaphysis - Bone segment 32

Femur Fracture Classification Type 0 - No comminution Type 1 - Insignificant butterfly fragment with transverse or short oblique fracture Type 2 - Large butterfly of less than 50% of the bony width, 50% of cortex intact Type 3 - Larger butterfly leaving less than 50% of the cortex in contact Type 4 - Segmental comminution » Winquist and Hansen 66A, 1984 Axial and rotational stability

Femur Fracture Management Piriformis fossa intact, lesser trochanter intact Can you nail this ? Should you nail this ?

Femur Fracture Management Initial traction with portable traction splint or transosseous pin and balanced suspension Evaluation of knee to determine pin placement Timing of surgery is dependent on: – Resuscitation of patient – Other injuries - abdomen, chest, brain – Isolated femur fracture

Bending moment F x D F Force F Force IM Nail D D distance from force to implant Plate D The bending moment for the plate is greater due to the force being applied over a larger distance

Femur Fracture Management Diaphyseal fractures are managed by intramedullary nailing through an antegrade or retrograde insertion site Proximal or distal 1/3 fractures MAY be managed best with a plate or an intramedullary nail depending on the location and morphology of the fracture

Hare traction splint for initial reduction of femur fractures prior to OR or skeletal traction

Femoral IM Nailing To Ream ? Hypothesis: Femoral reaming increases fatty emboli to the lungs and potentially increases pulmonary complications

Femur Fracture Reaming Reaming advantages: – – – – Nail will not get incarcerated Higher union rates More durable fracture/nail construct Earlier weight bearing Unreamed nails - still generate fat embolism with opening of piriformis fossa and probably higher pressure with unreamed nail insertion

Femur Fracture Reaming Reaming of the femoral shaft fracture – Multiple studies demonstrate that the thoracic injury is the major determinant of pulmonary complications, NOT the use of a reamed IM nail Charash J Trauma 1994 Van Os J Trauma 1994 Ziran J Trauma 1997 Bone Clin Orthop 1998 Bosse JBJS 79A 1997

Femur Fracture Reaming Reaming of the femoral shaft fracture – Only Pape (J Trauma 1993) has shown a deleterious pulmonary effect to immediate reamed intramedullary nailing in acute femur fracture patients with pulmonary trauma – In both a retrospective analysis and multiple animal studies (Pape , J Trauma 1992) – However, other animal studies refute these results Wolinsky, J Orthop Tr 1998 Duwelius, JBJS 79A 1997

Femur Fracture Reaming Pressures No difference in pressures generated by head design - Muller, Injury 1993 awl NO increase pressure with nail insertion 9.5mm first reamer 9mm reaming guide pin 13mm reamer with larger shaft

Injury Patient Johnson KJ, et al :Incidence of ARDS in patients with POLYTRAUMA multiple musculoskeletal Early stabilization beneficialinjuries: effect of early operative stabilization fractures. J Trauma 1985 » Seibel Ann of Surg 1985 » Bone, JBJS 1989 1. Incidence of ARDS increased with increased ISS and » Goris , J Trauma 1982 delay in fracture stabilization » Johnson, J Trauma 1985 » Behrman, J Trauma 2. The more severe the injury, the 1990 more significant » Bone, J Trauma fracture stabilization was in1994 preventing ARDS 3. Pts with ISS 40 had an increased mortality assoc with a delay in fracture stabilization

Damage Control Orthopaedics Select group of critically injured or “borderline” patients may not tolerate extensive procedures or blood loss

External Fixator for Femoral Shaft Fracture Multiply injured patient Exchange Nailing in the femur is safe yields Complex distaland femur fracture high union and low Dirty open fracture infection rates VascularJBJS injury Nowotarski 2000

Injury Patient Practice management guidelines Recommendations-Polytrauma Level II-no improvement in survival some patients fewer complications - no detrimental effect of early fixation - early fixation preferable - Dunham J Trauma 2001

Head Injury Femur Fx Early fixation of long bone fractures does NOT promote secondary brain injury which may increase mortality, BUT hypoxia, hypotension, and increased ICP DO Poole J Trauma 1992 Schmeling CORR 1995 McKee J Trauma 1997 Velmahos Am J Surg 1998 Scalea J Trauma 1999

Chest Injury Femur Fx CHEST INJURY Increased pulmonary Thoracic trauma ITSELF fat of is morbidity the major(ARDS, determinant embolism) morbidity and mortality, NOT IMlong NAILING Early bone stabilization Bone CORR 1995 questioned in patients with significant Bosse JBJS 1997 pulmonary injury

Timing of femur fracture fixation: effect on outcome in patients with thoracic and head injuries Brundage SI, J Trauma 2002 Data showed that early femur fracture fixation ( 24 hours) is associated with an improved outcome, even in patients with coexistent head and/or chest trauma. Fixation of femur fractures at 2 to 5 days was associated with a significant increase in pulmonary complications, particularly with concomitant head or chest trauma, and length of stay. Chest and head trauma are not contraindications to early fixation with reamed intramedullary nailing.

Delayed IM Nailing of Femur Fractures Reduces Mortality 3069 patients, ISS 15 serious abdominal injury (AIS 3) had most benefit from resuscitation delay 12 hours DECREASED mortality by 50% in multisystem trauma patients Morshed, JBJS 2009

Comparison of Reamed vs Unreamed IM Nails 224 patients multiply injured patients Risk of nonunion was 5x greater in unreamed group 80% of nonunions could have been prevented by reaming NO increase in ARDS with reaming !! Conclusion: REAM Powell and COA, JOT 2006

Femoral Nailing Course # 101 1. Femoral Nail Design 2. Ream vs Unreamed 3. Nails available, treatment options

Gerhard Kuntscher Technik der Marknagelung, 1945 Straight nail with 3 point fixation First IM nailing but not locking

Klemm K, Schellman WD: Veriegelung des marnagels, 1972 Locking IM nails in the 1980’s Kempf I, Grosse A: Closed Interlocking Intramedullary Nailing. Its Application to Comminuted fractures of the femur, 1985

IM Nail Variables Stainless steel vs Titanium Wall Thickness Cannulation Slotted vs Non-slotted Radius of Curvature ? To Ream

Stiffness Modulus of Elasticity cobalt 316L stainless titanium cortex bone PMMA 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 X 10 8 PSI Metallurgy less important than other parameters for stiffness of IM Nail 35 40

Wall Thickness Large determinant of stiffness

Slotted vs Non-slotted Anterior slot - improved flexibility Posterior slot - increased bending strength Non-slotted - increased torsional stiffness, increased strength in smaller sizes, ? comminution

Radius of Curvature of femur averages 120 cm Current femoral nails radius of curvature ranges from 150-300 cm IM nails are straighter (larger radius) than the femoral canal

Femur Fracture Management Antegrade nailing is still the gold standard – Highest union rates with reamed nails – Extraarticular starting point – Refined technique Antegrade nailing problems: – Varus alignment of proximal fractures – Trendelenburg gait – Can be difficult with obese or multiply injured patients

Antegrade Femoral Nailing: piriformis fossa starting point Caution !! Anterior point leads to Cautionstarting !! anterior increased proximal femur stresses

Minimally Invasive Nail Insertion Technique (MINIT) 1 Courtesy T.A. Russell, M.D. 3 2 4

Antegrade Femoral Nailing starting point Posterior loss of proximal fixation Piriformis fossa- proper starting point Anterior - generates huge forces, can lead to bursting of proximal femur

Femur Fractures Gluteal muscles Iliopsoas leads to flexion of the proximal fragment Adductor muscles shorten the femur These muscle forces must be overcome to reduce and intramedullary nail the femur

Static Locking of All Femoral IM Nails !!! Brumback- 1988 – 98% union with Statically Locked Rod

Immediate Weight Bearing Mythical 70 Kg Man – Axial Load to Failure 300% 75% Stiffness in Bending 50% Stiffness in torsion – Withstand 500,000 cycle at loads of 3X body – 28 Winquist type 4 fractures 27 Healed primarily No Locking Bolt or Rod Fatigue » Brumback JBJS 1999

Antegrade Nailing Fracture Table or Not ? Supine - better for multiply injured patients, tough starting point Lateral - easier piriformis fossa starting point, difficult set up, ? rotation Without a fracture table, length, distal lock first and slap nail Lateral Supine with bolster under torso Manual traction and rotation

Femur Fracture Management Retrograde nailing has advantages – Easier in large patients to find starting point – Better for combined fracture patterns (ipsilateral femoral neck, tibia,acetabulum) – Union approaching antegrade nails when reamed Retrograde nailing has its problems: – Union rates are slightly lower, more dynamizing with small diameter nails – Intra-articular starting point

Femur Fracture Technique Retrograde Intramedullary Nailing – Supine - flex the knee 50 to allow access to Blumensaat’s line Percutaneous with fluoro OR Limited open technique

Center guide pin on AP and Lateral Especially important for distal 1/3 fractures Above Blumensaat’s Line

Retrograde Femoral Nailing Starting Point

Mean Contact Area 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Control In Flush Out 90 degrees 120 degrees

Maximum Pressure 7 6 5 * p 0.05 Contol In Flush Out 4 3 * p 0.05 2 1 0 90 degrees 120 degrees Only with the nail 1 mm prominent were the patellofemoral pressures increased

Retrograde Femoral Nailing A cadaveric study using Fuji film demonstrated NO deleterious effects on the patello-femoral joint with a properly inserted retrograde IM nail The orthopaedic literature does NOT support decreased knee motion or increase knee pain with a retrograde nail

1 2 Bilateral femur fractures nailed retrograde Less comminuted fracture nailed first to assess length for segmental fracture

Retrograde IM Nail Femur Fractures 42 yo male C2 femur, Gr 2 open ipsilateral tibia fx

Retrograde IM Nail Femur Fractures Immediate post-op with treatment through a limited 4cm knee incision

Femur Fracture Management Retrograde Nailing – Union rates lower with unreamed nails – Higher dynamization with non canal sized nails – Better union rates equal to antegrade with reamed canal sized nails Moed JBJS 1995, J Orthop Trauma 1998 Ostrum J Orthop Trauma 1998, 2000 – Advantages for ipsilateral acetabulum or femoral neck and shaft fracture, floating knees, obese patients, supracondylar fractures including those around total knee replacements

Retrograde Nailing is Beneficial for Floating Knee Injuries

Shortening after Retrograde Nail Insertion Backslap after distal locking

Retrograde Nail: Long or Short ? 9 human matched cadaver femurs, gap model 36 cm vs 20 cm Coronal and sagittal testing 75 Newtons applied in 3 point bending Locked with 1 or 2 proximal screws

Retrograde Nail: Long or Short ? 20cm 36cm 2 prox,sagittal 7.2* 2 prox,coronal 6.3 1 prox,sagittal 7.6* 1 prox,coronal 13.6* 1.8* 4.3 2.2* 4.4* Longer nails provide improved stability !!! * statistically significant at p 0.05

Femur Fracture Technique Antegrade Intramedullary Nailing – Supine - better for multiply injured patients – Lateral - easier piriformis fossa starting point, difficult set up, rotation concerns – Without a fracture table Retrograde Intramedullary Nailing – Supine - flex the knee 50 to allow access to Blumensaat’s line

Antegrade v Retrograde Comparisons Equal union rates Tornetta, JBJS (B), 2000 Ricci, JOT, 2001 Ostrum, JOT, 2000 ANTEGRADE – More hip and proximal thigh pain – Greater incidence of Trendelenburg gait RETROGRADE – More symptomatic distal hardware – Higher dynamization rates with small diameter nails

Obesity Antegrade v Retrograde Ante OR Time Obese Non-Obese BMI 30 BMI 30 94 62 RetrogradeP .003 nailing Retro OR Time 67 is easier in nss obese 62 Ante Fluoro 247 135 P .03 Retro Fluoro 76 63 nss Tucker M. JOT 2007 patients !!

Comparison of Knee function after Antegrade and Retrograde IM Nailing with Isokinetic Evaluation No differences in : knee range of motion Lysholm Scores isokinetic knee evaluation time to union secondary surgeries (including hardware removal) - Daglar, JOT 2009

Antegrade Femoral Nailing: Piriformis vs Trochanteric Reduction and starting point are still the keys !! Problems arise with subtrochanteric fractures Inappropriate starting point leads to malreduction

Piriformis Nail: Poor Technique

Piriformis Nail: Poor Technique

three different starting points were used Tip of Trochanter 2-3 mm medial to tip 2-3 mm lateral to tip

TAN Medial Holland Lateral Gamma TFN Medial Femur # 9 Lateral Medial Lateral

Recommendations The tip of the trochanter or slightly medial is the entry site of choice for antegrade trochanteric nailing of subtrochanteric fractures The lateral starting point, even 2-3 mms from the tip of the trochanter, is to be avoided Ostrum R, JOT 2005

Lateral starting point with varus ! Lateral to tip of GT is OK for shaft fractures Medial to the tip of the GT for subtrochanteric fractures

Reduction with medial tip starting point

Medial Trochanteric Portal Perez E, Russell TA. JOT 2007

Starting point Reduction

Assessing rotation in the lateral position Without changing rotation of the Carm A true AP of the hip and knee

17 mm entry hole in trochanter 15-50% disruption of gluteus medius tendon ? Functional sequelae McConnell T, Clin Orthop 2003

A prospective, randomized comparison of trochanteric vs piriformis fossa entry portal for high energy proximal femur fractures -34 pts - Fx table, supine or lateral - FAN or Gamma - EBL - incision length, - duration of surgery - ease of device - adequacy of reduction - patient positioning No difference Starr AJ, J Orthop Trauma 2006

A prospective, randomized comparison of trochanteric vs piriformis fossa entry portal for high energy proximal femur fractures - NO difference in : Hip Scores, RTW, Ambulation, Hip/Knee ROM - Varus 5 degrees - Recon 2 - Gamma 4 - BMI significantly linked to duration of OR and length of incision, NOT EBL Starr AJ, J Orthop Trauma 2006

Femur Fracture Complications Hardware failure Nonunion - less than 1-2% Malunion - shortening, malrotation, angulation Infection Neurologic, vascular injury Heterotopic ossification

Femur Fracture Nonunion Femoral nonunion with broken IM Nail Union after exchange, reamed IM nail

Hypertrophic Nonunion Problem with smaller diameter nails Don’t Dynamize EXCHANGE !! Has a blood supply, WANTS MORE STABILITY

Plating of femoral nonunions after IM Nail 23 pts, nonunion of femur after IM nail nail removal, PLATING, soft tissue preservation 21/23 healed, avg 12 weeks avg OR time 164 minutes (120-240) avg EBL 340 ml (200-700) Bellabarba, JOT 2001

Exchange Nailing of femoral Nounions 42 pts, closed exchange nailing 7 posititve cultures 36 (86%) healed, avg 4 mos after OR Lack of immediate weight bearing, open fractures assoc with nonunion after 1st OR Atrophic/oligotrophic nonunions, and infection were associated with treatment failure after exchange nail A second nail larger by 2 mm or more than the original nail was associated with a higher success rate Shroeder, JOT 2009

Femur Fracture Subtrochanteric Fracture Management Possible to perform intramedullary nail if the piriformis fossa is intact Choice of nail type depends on if the lesser trochanter is intact Varus seen with proximal femur intramedullary nailing Plating is also an option with/without an intact starting point

Subtrochanteric fractures are from the base of the lesser trochanter to 5 cm distal

Low Subtroch Fx’s Most low subtrochanteric fractures with an intact piriformis fossa can be treated with a 1st gen IM Nail

When piriformis fossa is not involved and the lesser trochanter is fractured, a 2nd generation nail may be used

Nail or Plate

Indirect Reduction: Technique

Indirect Reduction Step 1- Approximate closed reduction with fracture table in BOTH planes Step 2 - Percutaneous insertion of guide pins

Knee Head Step 3 Placement of lag screw and percutaneous plate placement

Indirect Reduction Push up to prevent sag Step 4 - Final reduction with percutaneous screw placement

knee head Screw Placement

Final films after percutaneous Indirect Reduction of a Subtrochanteric femur fracture

Ipsilateral Femoral Neck & Shaft Fractures Optimum fixation of the femoral neck should be the goal Varus malunion of the femoral neck is not uncommon, osteotomies can lead to poor results Vertical femoral neck fracture seen in 26-59% of cases (Pauwel’s angle 70 ) Rate of avascular necrosis is low, 3%, even when missed

Ipsilateral Femoral Neck & Shaft Fractures Type 1 - nondisplaced femoral neck/hip fractures When found prior to nailing can be treated with screws or a sliding hip screw then retrograde or antegrade nail

Ipsilateral Femoral Neck & Shaft Fractures Type 2 - missed femoral neck fracture Insertion of screws around the nail Low AVN rate even when missed Vertical fractures not iatrogenic

Ipsilateral Femoral Neck & Shaft Fractures Type 3 - displaced femoral neck fractures Treat with implant appropriate for neck fracture FIRST Treat femoral shaft fracture with retrograde nail

Femoral Shaft Fracture with Vascular Injury Quick external fixation with restoration of length Fasciotomies

Femoral Shaft Fracture with Vascular Injury Exchange femoral nail either in same setting or in a few days When found early plating or rodding of femur is rarely possible first Do NOT perform IM nailing after arterial repair without initial length restoration

Open Femur Fracture Antegrade IM Nail is Safe Reamed , Antegrade Intramedullary Nailing has been shown to be effective A high union rate, low complications Perhaps stage Grade 3B fractures after debridement and skeletal traction – Brumback, JBJS 71A, 1989 – Lhowe, Hansen JBJS 70A, 198

Open Femur Fracture Antegrade IM Nail is Safe

IM Nailing of the Femoral Shaft Choice TO nail depends on fracture configuration, especially at proximal and distal ends Choice OF nail depends on fracture location, associated musculoskeletal injuries, obesity Think before IM Nailing of femur If you would like to volunteer as an author for the Resident Slide Project or recommend updates to any of the following slides, please send an e-mail to [email protected] E-mail OTA about Questions/Comments Return to Lower Extremity Index