Keywords
How to Cite
Abstract
FORENSIC ASSESSMENT OF ADVERSE OUTCOMES OF ISOLATED DIAPHYSEAL FEMORAL FRACTURES
Sokol V.
Fractures of the diaphysis of the femur are one of the most frequent mechanical injuries of the skeleton, however, the frequency and causes of the development of the complicated post-traumatic period are not well understood. The aim of this research was to study the causes of the development of adverse outcomes of isolated diaphyseal femoral fractures. Object and methods of research. Retrospective analysis of the protocols of clinical and radiological examination of 21 patients with adverse outcomes of a femoral diaphysis fracture, which, according to the results of the initial expert assessment, did not establish the severity of injuries due to the development of complications in the postoperative period. Results. The main cause of fractures in this category of patients is road traffic accidents (90.4% of cases); closed fractures of the femoral diaphysis (85.7%) in the middle third (76.1%) in men (76.2%) prevailed. The following reasons for the unsatisfactory results of surgical treatment of diaphyseal fractures of the femur were revealed: 1) patient-dependent: a combination of overweight and arthrosis of adjacent (hip and knee) joints - 57.1%; violation of the motor regime in the form of physical inactivity (19.0%) and excessive axial load on the operated leg (19.0%); 2) implant-dependent: a mismatch between the dimensions of the device for immersion osteosynthesis and the anatomical sizes of the corresponding segments of the femur in all cases; 3) surgical-dependent causes: unresolved intraoperative displacement of fragments of the femur (23.8%), violation of the technology of radiation diagnostics (14.3%), violation of the terms of postoperative x-ray monitoring (23.8%) and perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (14.3%). The consequence of this was a violation of the stability of osteosynthesis in 95.2% with a secondary displacement of bone fragments of the femur (47.6%), delayed consolidation of a hip fracture (61.9%), the formation of pseudarthrosis of the femur (38.1%), and post-traumatic femoral deformity bones (71.4%), development of post-traumatic contracture of the knee joint (81.0%), suppuration of the postoperative wound (23.8%), development of post-traumatic osteomyelitis (14.3%), migration of screws from the osseous plate (47.6% ), migration of a distal blocked nail from the intramedullary st rust (4.8%), intramedullary rod migration (4.8%).
Keywords: diaphyseal femoral fracture, surgical treatment, perioperative risk factors, postoperative complications, unsatisfactory outcomes.
Резюме.
СУДОВО-МЕДИЧНА ОЦІНКА НЕСПРИЯТЛИВИХ НАСЛІДКІВ ІЗОЛЬОВАНИХДІАФІЗАРНИХ ПЕРЕЛОМІВ СТЕГНОВОЇ КІСТКИ.
Сокол В.К.
Переломи діафіза стегнової кістки є однією з найбільш частих механічних травм скелета, проте частота і причини розвитку ускладненого посттравматичного періоду вивчені недостатньо. Метою даного дослідження стало вивчення причин розвитку несприятливих наслідків ізольованих діафізарних переломів стегнової кістки. Об'єкт і методи досліджень.Ретроспективний аналіз протоколів клініко-рентгенологічного обстеження 21 хворого з несприятливими наслідками перелому діафіза стегнової кістки, яким за підсумками первинної експертної оцінки не була встановлена ступінь тяжкості тілесних ушкоджень у зв'язку з розвитком ускладнень в післяопераційному періоді. Результат досліджень. Основна причина переломів у даній категорії пацієнтів - дорожньо-транспортні пригоди (90,4% випадків); переважали закриті переломи діафіза стегнової кістки (85,7%) в середній третині (76,1%) у чоловіків (76,2%). Виявлено наступні причини незадовільних результатів хірургічного лікування діафізарних переломів стегнової кістки: 1) паціентзалежні: поєднання надмірної ваги і артрозу суміжних (кульшового і колінного) суглобів - 57,1%; порушення рухового режиму у вигляді гіподинамії (19,0%) і надлишкового осьового навантаження на оперовану ногу (19,0%); 2) імплантзалежні: невідповідність розмірів пристрою для погружного остеосинтезу і анатомічних розмірів відповідних сегментів стегнової кістки у всіх випадках; 3) хірургзалежні причини: неусунення інтраопераційно зміщення фрагментів стегнової кістки (23,8%), порушення технології променевої діагностики (14,3%), порушення термінів післяопераційного рентгенконтроля (23,8%) і періопераційної антибіотикопрофілактики (14,3%). Наслідком цього стало порушення стабільності остеосинтезу в 95,2% з вторинним зміщенням кісткових фрагментів стегнової кістки (47,6%), сповільнена консолідація перелому стегна (61,9%), формування псевдоартрозу стегнової кістки (38,1%), посттравматична деформація стегнової кістки (71,4%), розвиток посттравматичної контрактури колінного суглоба (81,0%), нагноєння післяопераційної рани (23,8%), розвиток посттравматичного остеомієліту (14,3%), міграція гвинтів з накісткової пластини (47,6% ), міграція дистального цвяха, що блокує, з інтрамедулярного стрижня (4,8%), міграція інтрамедулярного стрижня (4,8%).
Ключові слова: діафізарний перелом стегна, хірургічне лікування, періопераційні фактори ризику, післяопераційні ускладнення, незадовільні наслідки діафізарних переломів стегна.
Резюме.
СУДЕБНО-МЕДИЦИНСКАЯ ОЦЕНКА НЕБЛАГОПРИЯТНЫХ ИСХОДОВ ИЗОЛИРОВАННЫХ ДИАФИЗАРНЫХ ПЕРЕЛОМОВ БЕДРЕННОЙ КОСТИ.
Сокол В.К.
Переломы диафиза бедренной кости являются одной из наиболее частых механических травм скелета, однако частота и причины развития осложненного посттравматического периода изучены недостаточно. Целью данного исследования стало изучение причин развития неблагоприятных исходов изолированных диафизарных переломов бедренной кости. Объект и методы исследований. Ретроспективный анализ протоколов клинико-рентгенологического обследования 21 больного с неблагоприятными исходами перелома диафиза бедренной кости,которым по итогам первичной экспертной оценки не была установлена степень тяжести телесных повреждений в связи с развитием осложнений в послеоперационном периоде.Результат исследований. Основная причина переломов у данной категории пациентов - дорожно-транспортные происшествия (90,4% случаев); преобладали закрытые переломы диафиза бедренной кости (85,7%) в средней трети (76,1%) у мужчин (76,2%). Выявлены следующие причины неудовлетворительных результатов хирургического лечения диафизарных переломов бедренной кости: 1) пациентзависимые: сочетание избыточного веса и артроза смежных (тазобедренного и коленного) суставов - 57,1%; нарушение двигательного режима в виде гиподинамии (19,0%) и избыточной осевой нагрузки на оперированную ногу (19,0%); 2) имплантзависимые: несоответствие размеров устройства для погружного остеосинтеза и анатомических размеров соответстующих сегментов бедренной кости во всех случаях; 3)хирургзависимые причины: неустраненное интраоперационно смещение фрагментов бедренной кости (23,8%), нарушение технологии лучевой диагностики (14,3%), нарушение сроков послеоперационного рентгенконтроля (23,8%) и периоперационной антибиотикопрофилактики (14,3%). Следствием этого явилось нарушение стабильности остеосинтеза в 95,2% с вторичным смещением костных фрагментов бедренной кости (47,6%), замедленная консолидация перелома бедра (61,9%), формирование псевдоартроза бедренной кости (38,1%), посттравматическая деформация бедренной кости (71,4%), развитие посттравматической контрактуры коленного сустава (81,0%), нагноение послеоперационной раны (23,8%), развитие посттравматического остеомиелита (14,3%), миграция винтов из накостной пластины (47,6%), миграция дистального блокируемого гвоздя из интрамедуллярного стержня (4,8%), миграция интрамедуллярного стержня (4,8%).
Ключевые слова: диафизарный перелом бедра, хирургическое лечение, периоперационные факторы риска, послеоперационные осложнения, неудовлетворительные исходы переломов диафиза бедра.
References
Deepak, CD., Chethan, BA. (2019). A study of functional outcome of femoral diaphyseal fractures by closed reduction and internal fixation using intramedullary interlocking nail in adults. International Journal of Orthopedic Science, 5(1),132-138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22271/ortho.2019.v5.i1c.25.
McLaughlin, MA, Orosz, GM, Magaziner, J, HannanEL, McGinn, T, Morrison, RS, Hochman T, & Koval K. (2006). Preoperative status and risk of complications in patients with hip fracture. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21(3),219-225.
Giannoudis, PV. (2003). Surgical priorities in damage control in polytrauma. Journal of Bone Surgery (Br), 85,478-83.
Plotnikov, IV, Bondarenko, AV. (2012). Oslozhneniya intramedulluarnogo blokiruemogo osteosynteza diafizarnyh perelomov bedra u patsientov s polytravmoy (Complications of intramedular lockable osteosynthesis of femur shaft fracture in patients with politrauma). New medical technologies, 1,15 - 37.
Koyuncu, S, Altay, T, Kayalı, C, Ozan, F, &Yamak, K. (2015). Mechanical failures after fixation with proximal femoral nail and risk factors. Clinical interventions in aging, 10, 1959-1965.
M. Ehlinger, M, Adam, P, Arlettaz, Y, Moor, BK, DiMarco, A, Brinkert, D, & Bonnomet, F. (2011). Minimally-invasive fixation of distal extra-articular femur fractures with locking plates: Limitations and failures. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research, 97,674—680.
Bentley, G, (ed.). (2014). European Surgical Orthopaedics and Traumatology. The EFORT Textbook. Springer, 2014.
Enninghorst, N, McDougall, D, Evans, JA, &, Balogh, ZJ. (2013). Population-based epidemiology of femur shaft fractures. Trauma Acute Care Surgery, 74(6),1516-520. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31828c3dc9.
Enninghorst, N, McDougall, D, Sisak, K, & Balogh, ZL. (2018). The epidemiology of femoral shaft fractures in an inclusive trauma system. Orthopaedic Proceedings, 94-B. Retrieved from https://online.boneandjoint.org.uk/doi/abs/10.1302/1358-992X.94BSUPP_XLI.AOA-NZOA2011-132.
Asplund, CA, & Mezzanotte, TJ. (2019). Midshaft femur fractures in adults. UpToDay. Retrieved from. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/midshaft-femur-fractures-in-adults#H14.
Deepak, MK, Jain, K, Rajamanya, KA, Gandhi, PR, Rupakumar, CS, & Ravishankar, R. (2012). Functional outcome of diaphyseal fractures of femur managed by closed intramedullary interlocking nailing in adults. Annals of African Medicine, 11 (1),52-57. DOI: 10.4103/1596-3519.91025
Adnan, RM, Zia, MI, & Amin, Jl. (2012). Frequency of femoral fractures; comparison in patients less than and more than 40 years of age. Professional Medical Journal, 19,11.
Zhang, Y. (2016). Clinical epidemiology of orthopaedic trauma (2nd ed.). New York, USA: Thieme.
Anderson, SR, Nelson, SC, & Morrison, MJ. (2017).Unstable pediatric femur fractures: combined intramedullary flexible nails and external fixation. Journal of Orthopedic Case Report, 7,32.
Fajar, JK, Taufan, T, Syarif, M, & Azharuddin, A. (2018). Hip geometry and femoral neck fractures: A meta-analysis (review article). Journal of Orthopaedic Translation, 13,1-6.
Medda, S, & Halvorson, J. (2019). Diaphyseal femur fractures. StatPearls Publishing LLC.[Internet].
Augatab, P, Rüdenabc, C. (2018). Evolution of fracture treatment with bone plates. Injury, 49(suppl 1), S2-S7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-1383(18)30294-8
Sultanbaev, TTz, Alchogaev, SS, & Tusupov DM. (2016). Oshibki oslozhneniya pri lechenyi perelomov bedra (Errors aand complications in the treatment of hip fractures). Vestnik KazNMU, 3(1),309-311.
Korzh, NA, Gerasimenko, SI, Klimovitskyi, VG, Loskutov, AE, Romanenko, KK, Gerasimenko, AS, & Kolomiets, EN. (2011) Rasprostranennost' perelomov kosteĭ i rezul'taty ikh lecheniya v Ukraine (kliniko-epidemiologicheskoye issledovaniye) (The prevalence of bone fractures and the results of their treatment in the Ukraine (clinical and epidemiological study)). Medical news, 7, 37-44.
Bel, J-C (2019). Pitfalls and limits of locking plates. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research, 105 (1, suppl.), S103-S109.
Ahtyamov, IF, Shakirov, FV, Gatina, EB, Manirambona, ZhK, & Aliev EI. (2015). Morfologicheskoye issledovaniye lokal'nogo vliyaniya implantatov s pokrytiyami na osnove sverkhtverdykh soyedineniĭ na kostnuyu tkan' v usloviyakh indutsirovannoĭ travmy (Morphological study of the local effect of implants with coatings based on superhard compounds on bone tissue under conditions of induced trauma). Journal of Clinical and Experimental Orthopedics named G.A. Ilizarov, 1,65-70.
Volotovskyi, PA, Sytnik, AA, & Beletskyi, AV. (2018). Infektsionnyye oslozhneniya posle osteosinteza dlinnykh trubchatykh kostey: etiologiya, klassifikatsiya i diagnostika. (Infectious complications after osteosynthesis of long tubular bones: etiology, classification and diagnosis). Military medicine, 1,83-89.
Elmi, A, Rohani, AR, Tabrizi, A, Esmaili, SM. (2014). Comparison of outcome of femoral shaft fracture fixation with intramedullary nail in elderly patient and patients younger than 60 years old. Archive Bone Joint Surgery, 2(2),103-105.
Kobbe, P, Klemm, R, Reilmann, H, & Hockertz, TJ. (2008). Less invasive stabilisation system (LISS) for the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures: a 3-year follow-up. Injury, 39,472–479.
Li, YL, Guo, WP, Jiang, WT, Wang, QY, & Fan, YB. (2013). Biomechanical study on the influence of shaping amplitude on material strenght of titanium implant. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 275,38-43. doi: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.275-277.38
Hung, L-W, Chao, C-K, Huang, J-R, Lin, J. (2018). Screw head plugs increase the fatigue strength of stainless steel, but not of titanium, locking plates. Bone Journal Research, 7(12),629-635. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.712.BJR-2018 -0083.R1
Sadic, S, Custovic, S, Smajic, N, Fazlic, M, Vujadinovic, A, Hrustic, A, & Jasarevic, M. (2014). Complications and functional recovery in treatment of femoral shaft fractures with unreamed intramedullary nailing. Medical Archives, 68(1),30-33.
Gueorguieva, B, Lenzb, M. (2018). Why and how do locking plates fail? Injury, 49(suppl 1),S56-S60. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-1383(18)30305-X.
Ehlinger, M, Adam, P, Di Marco, A, Arlettaz, Y, Moor, B-K, & Bonnomet, F. (2011). Periprosthetic femoral fractures treated by locked plating: Feasibility assessment of the mini-invasivesurgical option. A prospective series of 36 fractures. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research, 97(6),622-628.
Akinoola, L, Orekha, O, & Odunsi, A. (2011). Open intramedullary nailing of neglected femoral shaft fractures: indications and outcome. Acta Orthopedica Belgica, 77,73-77.
AlTurki, AA, AlAqeely, KS, AlMugren, TS, & AlZimami, IS. (2019). Analysis of femoral fracture post motor vehicle accidents. Saudi Medical Journal, 40(1),41–44. doi: 10.15537/smj.2019.1.21547
Berry, DJ. (2002). Management of periprosthetic fractures: the hip. Journal of Arthroplasty,17,11–13.
Xing, W, Pan, Z, Sun, L, Zhang, C, Zhang, Z, Feng, W, & Liu, C. (2019). Sliding bone graft combined with double locking plate fixation for the treatment of femoral shaft nonunion. Journal of International Medical Research, 47(5),2034–2044. DOI: 10.1177/0300060519835334.
Dim, EM, Ugwoegbulem, OA, & Ugbeye, ME. (2012). Adult traumatic femoral shaft fractures. A review of the literature. Ibom Medical Journal, 5(1),26-38.
Bottlang, M., Doornink, J., Byrd, G.D., Fitzpatrick, D.C., & Madey, S.M. (2009). A nonlocking end screw can decrease fracture risk caused by locked plating in the osteoporotic diaphysis. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Am.), 91,620–627.
Ehlinger, M, Ducrot, G, Adam, P, & Bonnomet, F. (2013). Distal femur fractures. Surgical techniques and a review of the literature. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research, 99, 353—360.
"Inter Collegas" is an open access journal: all articles are published in open access without an embargo period, under the terms of the CC BY-NC-SA (Creative Commons Attribution ‒ Noncommercial ‒ Share Alike) license; the content is available to all readers without registration from the moment of its publication. Electronic copies of the archive of journals are placed in the repositories of the KhNMU and V.I. Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine.
Copyright Agreement
1. This Agreement on the transfer of rights to use the work from the Co-authors to the publisher (hereinafter the Agreement) is concluded between all the Co-authors of the work, represented by the Corresponding Author, and Kharkiv National Medical University (hereinafter the University), represented by an authorized representative of the Editorial Board of scientific journals (hereinafter the Editorial Board).
2. This Agreement is an accession agreement within the meaning of clause 1 of Article 634 of the Civil Code of Ukraine: that is, a contract, "the terms of which are established by one of the parties in forms or other standard forms, which can be concluded only by joining the other party to the proposed contract as a whole. The other party cannot offer its terms of the contract." The party that established the terms of this contract is the University.
3. If there is more than one author, the authors choose the Corresponding Author, who communicates with the Editorial Board on his own behalf and on behalf of all Co-authors regarding the publication of a written work of a scientific nature (article or review, hereinafter referred to as the Work).
4. The contract begins from the moment of submission of the manuscript of the Work by the Corresponding Author to the Editorial Board, which confirms the following:
4.1. all Co-authors of the Work are familiar with and agree with its content, at all stages of reviewing and editing the manuscript and the existence of the published Work;
4.2. all Co-authors of the Work are familiar with and agree to the terms of this Agreement.
5. The published Work is in electronic form in public access on the websites of the University and any websites and electronic databases in which the Work is posted by the University and is available to readers under the terms of the "Creative Commons" license (Attribution NonCommercial Sharealike 4.0 International)" or more free licenses "Creative Commons 4.0".
6. The Corresponding Author transfers, and the University receives, the non-exclusive property right to use the Work by placing the latter on the University's websites for the entire term of copyright. The University participates in the creation of the final version of the Work by reviewing and editing the manuscript of the article or review provided to the Editorial Board by the Corresponding Author, translating the Work into any languages. For the participation of the University in the finalization of the Work, the Co-authors agree to pay the invoice issued to them by the University, if such payment is provided by the University. The size and procedure of such payment are not the subject of this contract.
7. The University has the right to reproduce the Work or its parts in electronic and printed forms, to make copies, permanent archival storage of the Work, distribution of the Work on the Internet, repositories, scientometric databases, commercial networks, including for monetary compensation from third parties.
8. The co-authors guarantee that the manuscript of the Work does not use works whose copyright belongs to third parties.
9. The authors of the Work guarantee that at the time of submission of the manuscript of the Work to the Editorial Board, the property rights to the Work belong only to them, neither in whole nor in part have they been transferred to anyone (not alienated), they are not the subject of a lien, litigation or claims by third parties.
10. The Work may not be posted on the University's website if it violates a person's right to the privacy of his personal and family life, harms public order and health.
11. The work may be withdrawn by the Editorial Board from the University websites, libraries and electronic databases where it was placed by the Editorial Board, in cases of detection of violations of the ethics of the authors and researchers, without any compensation for the losses of the Co-authors. At the time of submission of the manuscript to the Editorial Board and all stages of its editing and review, the manuscript must not have already been published or submitted to other editorial offices.
12. The right transferred under this Agreement extends to the territory of Ukraine and foreign countries.
13. The rights of Co-authors include the requirement to indicate their names on all copies of the Work or during any public use or public mention of the Work; the requirement to preserve the integrity of the Work; legal opposition to any distortion or other encroachment on the Work, which may harm the honor and reputation of the Co-authors.
14. Co-authors have the right to control their personal non-property rights by familiarizing themselves with the text (content) and form of the Work before its publication on the University's website, when transferring it to a printing company for reproduction or when using the Work in other ways.
15. The Co-authors, in addition to the property rights not transferred under this Agreement and taking into account the non-exclusive nature of the rights transferred under this Agreement, retain the property rights to finalize the Work and to use certain parts of the Work in other works created by the Co-authors.
16. The Co-authors are obliged to notify the Editorial Board of all errors in the Work, discovered by them independently after the publication of the Work, and to take all measures to eliminate such errors as soon as possible.
17. The University undertakes to indicate the names of the Co-authors on all copies of the Work during any public use of the Work. The list of Co-authors may be shortened according to the rules for the formation of bibliographic descriptions determined by the University or third parties.
18. The University undertakes not to violate the integrity of the Work, to agree with the Corresponding Author on all changes made to the Work during processing and editing.
19. In case of violation of their obligations under this Agreement, its parties bear the responsibility defined by this Agreement and the current legislation of Ukraine. All disputes under the Agreement are resolved through negotiations, and if the negotiations do not resolve the dispute – in the courts of the city of Kharkiv.
20. The parties are not responsible for the violation of their obligations under this Agreement, if it occurred through no fault of theirs. The party is considered innocent if it proves that it has taken all measures dependent on it for the proper fulfillment of the obligation.
21. The Co-authors are responsible for the truthfulness of the facts, quotes, references to legislative and regulatory acts, other official documentation, the scientific validity of the Work, all types of responsibility to third parties who have claimed their rights to the Work. The co-authors reimburse the University for all costs caused by claims of third parties for infringement of copyright and other rights to the Work, as well as additional material costs related to the elimination of identified defects.