Skip to main content
Log in

Osteoporotische Frakturen des proximalen Femurs

Was gibt es Neues?

Osteoporotic fractures of the proximal femur

What’s new?

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Chirurg Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die hüftnahen Frakturen im Alter nehmen weiterhin zu und sind fast alle mit einer Osteoporose assoziiert. Es sind besonders die Über-80-Jährigen, die zahlenmäßig zunehmen und die gefährdet sind. In der Behandlung dieser Patienten sind in den vergangenen Jahren einige neue Erkenntnisse gewonnen worden: Ein interdisziplinärer, multimodaler Ansatz mit früher Einbeziehung von Internisten, Geriatern, Anästhesisten, Osteologen, Sozialarbeitern, ambulanten Pflegeeinrichtungen, Seniorenheimen und niedergelassenen Orthopäden/Unfallchirurgen scheint bessere Ergebnisse mit weniger Komplikationen zu generieren. Die Diagnostik bei Frakturverdacht sollte CT-Untersuchungen mit Darstellung des dorsalen Beckenrings mit beinhalten. Die frühzeitige Operation innerhalb von 48 h hat einen signifikant positiven Effekt bez. allgemeiner und lokaler Komplikationsraten und einer frühen Mortalität. Medizinische und organisatorische Hindernisse der Frühoperation wie eine gerinnungshemmende Medikation, der Umgang mit Patienten mit mentaler Dysfunktion und fehlende Operationskapazitäten sind in Deutschland zunehmend rückläufig. Damit verringern sich die Komplikationen in der BRD nahezu jährlich. Die Endoprothetik ist weiterhin mit einer höheren Klinikletalität belastet als die Osteosynthese (4,4 vs. 5,8%). Die Neuerungen bei Implantaten und Operationstechniken haben ebenfalls zu den verminderten Komplikationsraten beigetragen. Während sich für die wesentlich dislozierten Schenkelhalsfrakturen weiterhin die Endoprothese anbietet, ist die belastungsstabile Osteosynthese mit stabilen extramedullären Implantaten bei den nicht und wenig dislozierten Frakturen angezeigt. Für die pertrochanteren Frakturen hat sich die extramedulläre Stabilisierung für stabile Frakturtypen und die intramedulläre für die instabilen Frakturformen etabliert. Die 3. Generation der Nägel hat eine signifikante Reduktion der Komplikationsraten bez. „cut-out“ und Reoperationen mit sich gebracht. Die Rotationssicherung des Kopf-Hals-Fragmentes durch winkelstabile Klingen und die Möglichkeit der Zementaugmentation der Knochensubstanz im Hüftkopf bringen Vorteile, die in der Praxis noch bestätigt werden müssen. Die Endoprothetik hat bei den pertrochanteren Frakturen nach wie vor 3-fach erhöhte Komplikationsraten und somit nur in Einzelfällen eine Berechtigung.

Abstract

Proximal femoral fractures in the elderly are still increasing and are almost always associated with osteoporosis. Especially the over 80-year-olds are increasing and at risk in this respect. In the treatment of these patients new knowledge has been achieved over the last years. An interdisciplinary, multimodal approach with early involvement of internists, geriatricians, anesthetists, osteologists, social workers, care facilities and outpatient trauma and orthopedic surgeons seems to generate a better outcome with fewer complications. In cases of suspected proximal femoral fracture diagnostic imaging should include a computed tomography scan of the posterior pelvic ring to detect commonly occurring fragility fractures of the lateral mass of the sacrum. Early surgery within the first 48 h has a significant positive effect with respect to general and local complications and early mortality. Medical and organizational barriers to an early operation, such as anticoagulant medication, limited capability of communication due to mental dysfunction and lack of operation capacity are continuously declining and subsequently complication rates are decreasing annually in Germany. Endoprosthetics are still associated with higher perioperative mortality than osteosynthesis (4.4 % versus 5.8 %). The innovations in the field of implants and surgical technique also contribute to these lower complication rates. While endoprosthetic treatment is still the gold standard for severely dislocated femoral neck fractures, non-dislocated or slightly dislocated fractures should be fixed with a stable extramedullary implant. For pertrochanteric fractures extramedullary stabilization can only be recommended for stable types of fractures. Every instable trochanteric fracture should be fixed with an intramedullary implant. The use of third generation nails has implicated a significant reduction of complication rates regarding cut-out and reoperations. Rotational fixing of the head-neck fragment with angular stable blade systems and the option of polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA) cement augmentation are promising advantages that still remain to be clinically tested. Endoprosthetic treatment of pertrochanteric femoral fractures still has 3 times higher complication rate and is implemented only in exceptional situations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5

Literatur

  1. Aqua, Qualitätsreport (2011) Qualitätsreport 2010. In: AQUA-Institut für angewandte Qualitätsförderung und Forschung im Gesundheitswesen GmbH

  2. Barton TM, Gleeson R, Topliss C et al (2010) A comparison of the long gamma nail with the sliding hip screw for the treatment of AO/OTA 31-A2 fractures of the proximal part of the femur: a prospective randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:792–798

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM et al (1995) The value of the tip-apex distance in predicting failure of fixation of peritrochanteric fractures of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77:1058–1064

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bhandari M, Schemitsch E, Jonsson A et al (2009) Gamma nails revisited: gamma nails vs. compression hip screws in the management of intertrochanteric fractures of the hip: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma 23:460–464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Board E (2011) Osteoporosis – striking the right balance. Lancet 25:2152

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bonnaire F, Lein T, Bula P (2011) Trochanteric femoral fractures: anatomy, biomechanics and choice of implants. Unfallchirurg 114:491–500

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bonnaire F, Weber A, Bosl O et al (2007) „Cutting out“ in pertrochanteric fractures – problem of osteoporosis? Unfallchirurg 110:425–432

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon DH et al (2007) Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005–2025. J Bone Miner Res 22:465–475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cleveland M, Bosworth D, Thompson F et al (1959) A ten-year analysis of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am 41-A:1399–1408

    Google Scholar 

  10. Erhart S, Schmoelz W, Blauth M et al (2011) Biomechanical effect of bone cement augmentation on rotational stability and pull-out strength of the Proximal Femur Nail Antirotation™. Injury 42:1322–1327

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Eurostat (2011) European demography report 2010. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/population/introduction

  12. Geller JA, Saifi C, Morrison TA et al (2010) Tip-apex distance of intramedullary devices as a predictor of cut-out failure in the treatment of peritrochanteric elderly hip fractures. Int Orthop 34:719–722

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Haidukewych GJ, Israel T, Berry D (2001) Reverse obliquity fractures of the intertrochanteric region of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A:643–650

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hohendorff B, Meyer P, Menezes D et al (2005) Treatment results and complications after PFN osteosynthesis. Unfallchirurg 108:936–941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Icks A, Haastert B, Wildner M et al (2008) Trend of hip fracture incidence in Germany 1995–2004: a population-based study. Osteoporos Int 19:1139–1145

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lenich A, Vester H, Nerlich M et al (2010) Clinical comparison of the second and third generation of intramedullary devices for trochanteric fractures of the hip – blade vs screw. Injury 41:1292–1296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Leung KS, Chen C, So WS et al (1996) Multicenter trial of modified Gamma nail in East Asia. Clin Orthop Relat Res 323:146–154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Liu Y, Tao R, Liu F et al (2010) Mid-term outcomes after intramedullary fixation of peritrochanteric femoral fractures using the new proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA). Injury 41:810–817

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Loch DA, Kyle RF, Bechtold JE et al (1998) Forces required to initiate sliding in second-generation intramedullary nails. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80:1626–1631

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lucke M, Burghardt RD, Siebenlist S et al (2010) Medial migration of lag screw with intrapelvic dislocation in gamma nailing–a unique problem? A report of 2 cases. J Orthop Trauma 24:e6–e11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Marsh D, Akesson K, Beaton D et al (2011) Coordinator-based systems for secondary prevention in fragility fracture patients. Osteoporos Int 22:2051–2065

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Mereddy P, Kamath S, Ramakrishnan M et al (2009) The AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA): a new design for the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures. Injury 40:428–432

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Muller M, Seitz A, Besch L et al (2008) Proximal femur fractures: results and complications after osteosynthesis with PFN and TGN. Unfallchirurg 111:71–77

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Parker MJ, Handoll HH (2010) Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails vs. extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev:CD000093

    Google Scholar 

  25. Penzkofer J, Mendel T, Bauer C et al (2009) Treatment results of pertrochanteric and subtrochanteric femoral fractures: a retrospective comparison of PFN and PFNA. Unfallchirurg 112:699–705

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Pfeilschifter J (2006) DVO-guideline for prevention, diagnosis, and therapy of osteoporosis for women after menopause, for men after age 60 executive summary guidelines. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 114:611–622

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Pu JS, Liu L, Wang GL et al (2009) Results of the proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA) in elderly Chinese patients. Int Orthop 33:1441–1444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Roerdink W, Aalsma A, Nijenbanning G et al (2011) Initial promising results of the dynamic locking blade plate, a new implant for the fixation of intracapsular hip fractures: results of a pilot study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131:519–524

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Simmermacher RK, Ljungqvist J, Bail H et al (2008) The new proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) in daily practice: results of a multicentre clinical study. Injury 39:932–939

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Smektala R, Endres HG, Dasch B et al (2008) The effect of time-to-surgery on outcome in elderly patients with proximal femoral fractures. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 9:171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Smektala R, Hahn S, Schrader P et al (2010) Medial hip neck fracture: influence of pre-operative delay on the quality of outcome. Results of data from the external in-hospital quality assurance within the framework of secondary data analysis. Unfallchirurg 113:287–292

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Stern R (2010) Medial migration of lag screw with intrapelvic dislocation in Gamma nailing – a unique problem? A report of two cases. J Orthop Trauma 24:e74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Stern R, Lubbeke A, Suva D et al (2011) Prospective randomised study comparing screw vs helical blade in the treatment of low-energy trochanteric fractures. Int Orthop 35:1855–1861

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Strassberger C, Unger L, Weber AT et al (2010) Management of osteoporosis-related bone fractures: an integrated concept of care. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130:103–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Utrilla AL, Reig JS, Munoz FM et al (2005) Trochanteric gamma nail and compression hip screw for trochanteric fractures: a randomized, prospective, comparative study in 210 elderly patients with a new design of the gamma nail. J Orthop Trauma 19:229–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wild M, Jungbluth P, Thelen S et al (2010) The dynamics of proximal femoral nails: a clinical comparison between PFNA and Targon PF. Orthopedics 33

  37. Yaozeng X, Dechun G, Huilin Y et al (2010) Comparative study of trochanteric fracture treated with the proximal femoral nail anti-rotation and the third generation of gamma nail. Injury 41:1234–1238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt für sich und seine Koautoren an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Bonnaire.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bonnaire, F., Straßberger, C., Kieb, M. et al. Osteoporotische Frakturen des proximalen Femurs. Chirurg 83, 882–891 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-012-2340-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-012-2340-8

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation