ABSTRACT
Objective:To revise the 2017 classification of irreducible intertrochanteric fractures and summarize reduction techniques of 2021 classification.Methods:A retrospective analysis was conducted of the 17 patients with irreducible intertrochanteric fracture who had been treated at Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Ninth People's Hospital of Shanghai, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine from January 2015 to December 2019. They were 7 males and 10 females, with an age of (73.2 ± 16.1) years. On the basis of 2017 classification, the irreducible intertrochanteric fractures were classified into 2 types in the present 2021 classification. Type Ⅰ were interlocking fractures which were further classified into 3 subtypes: type ⅠA were sagittal interlocking ones (7 cases), type ⅠB greater trochanter interlocking ones (one case) and type ⅠC lesser trochanter interlocking ones (one case). Type Ⅱ were separating fractures which were further classified into 4 subtypes: type ⅡA were sagittal separating ones (4 cases), type ⅡB coronal separating ones (one case), type ⅡC rotational separating ones(one case) and type ⅡD complete separating ones (2 cases). All patients were treated by closed reduction and intramedullary nailing with different reduction strategies corresponding to their fracture types (application of ejector rods, clamps or prying techniques, etc.). A total of 132 patients with reducible femoral intertrochanteric fracture who had been admitted during the same period were selected as the control group. The fracture reduction time, intraoperative blood loss and Harris hip score at the last follow-up were compared between the 2 groups.Results:The 2 groups were comparable because there was no significant difference in their preoperative general data ( P>0.05). Type ⅠA accounted for the highest proportion of irreducible intertrochanteric fractures [41.3% (7/17)], followed by type ⅡA [23.6% (4/17)]. The fracture reduction time [(44.6 ± 6.7) min] in the irreducible group was significantly longer than that in the control group [(39.2 ± 9.6) min] ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss or Harris hip score at the last follow-up between the 2 groups ( P>0.05). Conclusions:Compared with the "2017 classification" , the "2021 classification" is more concise and easy to remember, and can directly prompt the corresponding proper fracture reduction techniques. The patients with irreducible intertrochanteric fracture using proper reduction techniques can obtain functional recovery similar to that in the patients with reducible intertrochanteric fracture after reduction and fixation.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare perioperative hidden blood loss after hip hemiarthroplasty via the SuperPATH approach and the conventional posterior approach (the Moore approach). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2015 to January 2017, 130 patients (80.7⯱â¯6.0 years) with displaced femoral neck fracture (Garden type III or IV) undergoing hip hemiarthroplasty were included in this study. As a non-randomisation study, Fifty-two patients (SuperPATH group) were operated using the SuperPATH approach, and 78 patients (Moore group) were operated with the conventional posterior approach (Moore approach). The demographic and relevant clinical information of the patients were collected. According to the combination formulas of Nadler, Gross and Sehat, the hidden blood loss (HBL) of each patient was calculated. Student's t-test for independent samples was used to compare the normally distributed variables and the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare variables not following a normal distribution. RESULTS: The visible blood loss (VBL) in the SuperPATH group was 123.7⯱â¯47.5â¯ml, the hidden blood loss (HBL) was 1084.1⯱â¯816.8â¯ml and the HBL% was 82.7⯱â¯16.5%. In the Moore group, the VBL was 303.6⯱â¯139.6â¯ml, the HBL was 700.2⯱â¯563.8â¯ml and the HBL% was 61.5⯱â¯23.8%. The patients in the SuperPATH group had more HBL and HBL% (Pâ¯<â¯0.05). However, no significant difference was observed of total blood loss (TBL) between the two groups (Pâ¯=â¯0.125). CONCLUSIONS: HBL should not be ignored in patients who underwent hip hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures, as it is a significant portion of TBL. Compared with the conventional approach, the SuperPATH approach had a greater amount of HBL. A better understanding of HBL after hip hemiarthroplasty may help surgeons improve clinical assessment and ensure patient safety.
