Elsevier

Injury

Volume 41, Issue 7, July 2010, Pages 739-745
Injury

Classification of subtrochanteric femoral fractures

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2010.02.018Get rights and content

Abstract

A review of the literature identified 15 different classification methods for subtrochanteric femoral fractures. Only eight of those classifications defined the area of bone, which constituted a subtrochanteric fracture. The actual length of femur defined as the subtrochanteric zone varied from 3 cm up to the level of the femoral isthmus. There was no agreement between the different classifications regarding the proximal and distal border or for those fractures, which traverse anatomical boundaries. In the various classifications, fractures were subdivided into 2–15 subgroups. The majority of the identified studies were unable to find the classifications useful in either determining treatment or predicting the outcome after treatment. We subdivided subtrochanteric fractures into three types based on the degree of fracture comminution. We examined the inter- and intra-observer agreement of our recommended classification. One orthopaedic consultant, one specialist hip fracture surgeon, two trainee registrar orthopaedic surgeons and one specialty trainee in orthopaedics, on two different occasions, 8 weeks apart, independently classified the radiographs of 20 patients with a subtrochanteric fracture. The mean kappa value for inter- and intra-observer variation was 0.71 and 0.79, respectively, with both showing substantial agreement and, therefore, this simpler classification is recommended. Based on the review of previous classification methods, we also recommend that the subtrochanteric zone be defined as the one in which the fracture line crossing the femur is predominantly within the area of bone extending 5 cm below the lower border of the lesser trochanter.

Introduction

When considering a particular bony injury, a clear definition of the anatomical site of the fracture is required. Having defined the area of bone involved, the fracture may be further classified into subdivisions. The ideal classification system should have a low inter- and intra-observer variation and been demonstrated to be of value in determining the choice of treatment and/or prognosis.2

There are numerous reports within the literature on subtrochanteric femoral fractures. However, there is no consensus from these studies or other areas of the orthopaedic literature as to the definition of what constitutes such a fracture. In addition, these reports have different methods of classifying subtrochanteric fractures. This study examines the previously used definitions of a subtrochanteric fracture and compares the different classification systems. From this, a definition of subtrochanteric fractures is suggested along with the most appropriate method of classifying this fracture.

Section snippets

Materials and methods

A MEDLINE search was made for all years up to January 2008 to retrieve all published papers on subtrochanteric fractures using the search terms ‘hip fractures’, ‘proximal femoral fractures’ and ‘femoral fractures’. The abstracts from all identified articles were reviewed. In addition, a search was made from one of the author's own personal library (MJP) of articles on the topic of hip fracture. Only articles written in the English language were considered. From these articles and the references

Literature review

Seventy-nine papers were identified that mentioned a method of classification of subtrochanteric fractures. Within these articles, 15 different methods of classifying subtrochanteric fractures were identified (Table 2). Most classification methods used a combination of the following fracture characteristics: the number of different fragments, the appearance of the fracture line (transverse, oblique or spiral), the level of the fracture line and the degree of displacement. Fractures were

Discussion

Whilst we would consider this review of different trials to be extensive, it cannot be considered to include all the reported studies. We are, however, confident that the most commonly used classification methods of subtrochanteric femoral fractures have been identified.

Of the 15 classification systems that we identified, eight defined what the subtrochanteric zone was by specifying both the proximal and distal margins. The consensus in five of those eight studies was that the lower border of

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest in connection with this paper. No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.

References (36)

  • O. Cech et al.

    Principles of the surgical treatment of subtrochanteric fractures

    Orthop Clin N Am

    (1974)
  • D.J. Johnstone et al.

    Interobserver variation using the AO/ASIF classification of long bone fractures

    Injury

    (1993)
  • E.F. Rybicki et al.

    On the mathematical analysis of stress in the human femur

    J Biomech

    (1972)
  • M.P. Bostrom et al.

    A biomechanical evaluation of the long stem intramedullary hip screw

    J Orthop Trauma

    (1995)
  • A.H. Burstein

    Fracture classification systems: do they work and are they useful?

    J Bone Joint Surg Am

    (1993)
  • J.W. Fielding et al.

    Subtrochanteric fractures

    Surg Gynecol Obstet

    (1966)
  • P.M. Gehrchen et al.

    Seinsheimer's classification of subtrochanteric fractures: poor reproducibility of 4 observers’ evaluation of 50 cases

    Acta Orthop Scand

    (1997)
  • L.J. Harris

    Closed retrograde intramedullary nailing of peritrochanteric fractures of the femur with a new nail

    J Bone Joint Surg Am

    (1980)
  • J.S. Jensen

    Classification of trochanteric fractures

    Acta Orthop Scand

    (1980)
  • H. Kaufer

    Mechanics of the treatment of hip injuries

    Clin Orthop Relat Res

    (1980)
  • J.C. Koch

    The laws of bone architecture

    Am J Anat

    (1917)
  • F.J. Kummer et al.

    Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation of subtrochanteric fractures. A biomechanical study

    Acta Orthop Scand

    (1998)
  • P.R. Kuzyk et al.

    Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation for subtrochanteric femur fractures

    J Orthop Trauma

    (2009)
  • J.R. Landis et al.

    The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data

    Biometrics

    (1977)
  • D.W. Lundy

    Subtrochanteric femoral fractures

    J Am Acad Orthop Surg

    (2007)
  • M.N. Mahomed et al.

    Biomechanical analysis of the Medoff sliding plate

    J Trauma

    (2000)
  • N. Mahomed et al.

    Biomechanical analysis of the Gamma nail and sliding hip screw

    Clin Orthop Relat Res

    (1994)
  • H. Malkawi

    Bone grafting in subtrochanteric fractures

    Clin Orthop

    (1982)
  • Cited by (71)

    • Exchange nailing and medial wall reconstruction following implant failure in a subtrochanteric femoral fracture

      2021, Trauma Case Reports
      Citation Excerpt :

      Subtrochanteric femoral fractures are defined as those occurring up to 5 cm below the distal border of the lesser trochanter and constitute up to 30% of all proximal femoral fractures [1–6].

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text