Complication rate in the treatment of inter- and subtrochanteric femure fractures with two intramedullary osteosyntheses. Comparison of a conventional nailing system and a rotation stable fixation of the head-neck-fragment, gammanail and glidingnail;Komplikationsraten bei der versorgung von per- und subtrochanteren femurfrakturen mit zwei intramedullären osteosyntheseverfahren. Vergleich eines konventionellen nagelsystems mit einem rotationsstabilen verfahren im kopf-hals-fragment, gammanagel und gleitnagel

Zentralblatt fur Chirurgie

Volumn 128, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 212-217

  Suckel, Andreas ^a,e   Helwig, P ^b   Schirmer, A ^b   Garbrecht, M ^c   Mocke, U ^d  

^a Kreiskrankenhaus Leonberg   (Germany)

^b KLINIKUM STUTTGART   (Germany)

^c Oberschwabenklinik Bad Waldsee   (Germany)

^d Dr O G Krankenhaus Lindenberg   (Germany)

^e Kreiskrankenhaus Leonberg   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cut out; Gammanail; Glidingnail; Intertrochanteric femur fracture; Subtrochanteric femur fracture

Indexed keywords

ACETABULUM; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMUR HEAD; FEMUR INTERTROCHANTERIC FRACTURE; FEMUR SHAFT FRACTURE; FEMUR SUBTROCHANTERIC FRACTURE; HUMAN; INFECTION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRAMEDULLARY NAILING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OSTEOSYNTHESIS; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; ROTATION; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BONE NAILS; COHORT STUDIES; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FEMORAL FRACTURES; FRACTURE FIXATION, INTRAMEDULLARY; HIP FRACTURES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; REOPERATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 0037365405     PISSN: 0044409X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-2003-38535     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Albareda J, Laderiga A, Palanca D, Paniagua L, Seral F. Complications and technical problems with the gamma nail. Int Orthop 1996; 20: 47-50
2. Aune AK, Ekeland A, Odegaard B, Grogaard B, Alho A. Gamma nail vs. compression screw for trochanteric femoral fractures. 15 reoperations in a prospective, randomized study of 378 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 1994; 65: 127-130
3. Bridle SH, Patel AD, Bircher M, Calvert PT. Fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. A randomised prospective comparison of the gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1992; 73: 330-334
4. Butt M, Krikler S, Nafie S, Ali M. Comparism of dynamic hip screw and gamma nail: a prospective, randomised, controlled trial. Injury 1995; 26: 615-618
5. Fornander P, Thorngren K, Törnquist H, Ahrengrat L, Lindgren U. Swedish experience of the first 209 randomized patients with gamma nail vs. screw-plate. Acta Orthop Scand 1992; 63: 90
6. Friedl W, Colombo-Benkmann M, Dockter S, Machens HG, Mieck U. Gammanagel-Osteosynthese per- und subtrochanterer Femurfrakturen und ihre Konsequenz für die weitere Implantatentwicklung. Chirurg 1994; 65: 953-963
7. Friedl W, Göhring U, Fritz T, Krieglstein C. Die Gleitnagelosteosynthese. Ein neues universell einsetzbares Implantat zur Versorgung perund subtrochanterer Femurfrakturen. Chirurg 1998; 69: 191-197
8. Friedl W, Clausen J. Experimentelle Untersuchungen zur Optimierung der Belastungsstabilität von Implantaten für proximale Femurfrakturen. Chirurg 2001; 72: 1344-1352
9. Fritz T, Hiersemann K, Krieglstein C, Friedl W. Prospective randomized comparison of gliding nail and gamma nail in the therapy of trochanteric fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1999; 119: 1-6
10. Goldhagen P, O'Connor D, Schwarze D, Schwarz E. A prospective comparative study of the compression hip screw and the gamma nail. J Orthop Trauma 1994; 8: 367-372
11. Halder SC. The Gamma nail for peritrochanteric fractures. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1992; 74: 340-344
12. Heinz T, Vecsei V. Komplikationen und Fehler bei der Anwendung des Gammanagels. Ursachen und Prävention. Chirurg 1994; 65: 943-952
13. Kempf I, Grosse A, Taglang G, Favreul E. Gamma nail in the treatment of closed trochanteric fractures. Results and indications apropos of 121 cases. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 1993; 79: 29-40
14. Leung KS, So WS, Shen WY, Hui PW. Gamma nails and dynamic hip screws for peritrochanteric fractures. A randomised prospective study in elderly patients. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1992; 74: 345-351
15. Parker MJ, Pryor GA. Gamma versus DHS nailing for extracapsular femoral fractures. Meta-analysis of ten randomised trials. Int Orthop 1996; 20: 163-168
16. Radford P, Needorf M, Webb J. A prospective randomized comparison of the dynamic hip screw and the gamma locking nail. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1993; 75: 789-793
17. Rantanen J, Aro HT. Intramedullary fixation of high subtrochanteric femoral fractures: a study comparing two implant designs, the gamma nail and the intramedullary hip screw. J Orthop Trauma 1998; 12: 249-252
18. Rosenblum SF, Zuckerman JD, Kummer FJ, Tam BS. A biomechanical evaluation of the gamma nail. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1992; 74: 352-357
19. Steindl A, Schörghuber L. Frühergebnisse und Problemanalyse nach Versorgung per- und subtrochanterer Oberschenkelfrakturen mit Gleitnagel und PFN. Osteosynthese International 2000; 8: 86-94
20. Stürmer KM, Dresing K. Pertrochantere Frakturen. Zentralbl Chir 1995; 120: 862-872
21. Suckel A, Wynands N, Garbrecht M, Mocke U. Die belastungsstabile osteosynthetische Versorgung von per- und subtrochanteren Frakturen mit dem Gleitnagel. Akt Traumatol 2001; 31: 171-175
22. Vanderschot P, Vanderspeeten K, Verheyen L, Broos P. A review on 161 subtrochanteric fractures - risk factors influencing outcome: age, fracture pattern and fracture level. Unfallchirurg 1995; 98: 265-271
23. Weise K, Schwab E. Intramedulläre Kraftträger zur Versorgung der per- und subtrochanteren Femurfraktur. Chirurg 2001; 72: 1277-1282
24. Williams W, Parker BC. Complications associated with the use of the gamma nail. Injury 1992; 23: 291-292