Tag Archive | Femur

JBJS Classics: The Self-Locking Metal Hip Prosthesis

JBJS ClassicsOrthoBuzz regularly brings you a current commentary on a “classic” article from The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. These articles have been selected by the Editor-in-Chief and Deputy Editors of The Journal because of their long-standing significance to the orthopaedic community and the many citations they receive in the literature. Our OrthoBuzz commentators highlight the impact that these JBJS articles have had on the practice of orthopaedics. Please feel free to join the conversation about these classics by clicking on the “Leave a Comment” button in the box to the left.

Austin Moore’s article “The Self-Locking Metal Hip Prosthesis” was published in The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in 1957. Dr. Moore had a lifelong professional interest in hip-fracture surgery and was well aware of the problems associated with reduction and fixation of displaced femoral neck fractures. He had previously designed an internal-fixation device for the management of these injuries and had recognized that perfect reduction, accurate placement of the hip nail, and 100% compliance with non-weight bearing were prerequisites for a satisfactory outcome. For patients in whom those criteria could not be met or those in whom reduction and fixation had failed, an alternate method of managing these fractures was required.

Fourteen years prior to the publication of this landmark article, Dr. Moore had published a case report in The Journal (July 1943) in which he documented the use of a metal prosthesis to replace the proximal end of the femur for a patient with an aggressive giant cell tumour. Some years later the patient succumbed from other causes and the femur was retrieved at autopsy. The specimens demonstrated satisfactory osseointegration of this implant in the proximal femur and encouraged Dr. Moore to experiment with a number of models of proximal femoral implants. This progression of implant design and usage is carefully outlined in this classic paper, which is amply illustrated with radiographs and autopsy specimens of the evolving prosthesis that eventually became known as the Austin Moore hip prosthesis.

This paper is notable for a number of reasons. First, Dr. Moore was able to demonstrate satisfactory fixation using an intramedullary stemmed implant—a significant departure from the early efforts of the Judet brothers and others, who used a small stem in the residual femoral neck in patients being treated for hip arthritis. Secondly, the author developed a specific surgical approach allowing for the insertion of these slightly curved stems into the femur—an approach that is still used today in a number of surgical hip procedures.

Third, Dr. Moore demonstrated the usefulness of proximal femoral replacement in acute displaced femoral neck fractures, avascular necrosis following femoral neck fracture, and non-unions of the femoral neck. He further expanded the use of this implant in the treatment of hip arthritis and documents a number of such cases in this article.

Throughout the article, Dr. Moore emphasizes the importance of meticulous surgical technique, the use of bone ingrowth fixation, careful sizing of the femoral head to the native acetabulum, and the importance of conscientious post-operative care. Finally, he recognized the importance of routine follow-up of endoprostheses and insisted on a yearly visit to ensure appropriate integration of the prosthesis.

In summary, with this article Dr. Moore started a trend of endoprosthetic treatment for displaced femoral neck fractures that is now the standard of care throughout much of the world. During the development of this technique, he demonstrated the importance of bone ingrowth as a method of stabilizing the prosthesis, the importance of good surgical technique, and the value of long-term follow-up in managing patients with hip prostheses. The fact that the implant he designed and reported on 60 years ago is still in widespread use is a reflection of his vision.

James P. Waddell MD, FRCSC
JBJS Deputy Editor

JBJS Classics: The Küntscher Method of IM Fixation

JBJS ClassicsOrthoBuzz regularly brings you a current commentary on a “classic” article from The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. These articles have been selected by the Editor-in-Chief and Deputy Editors of The Journal because of their long-standing significance to the orthopaedic community and the many citations they receive in the literature. Our OrthoBuzz commentators highlight the impact that these JBJS articles have had on the practice of orthopaedics. Please feel free to join the conversation about these classics by clicking on the “Leave a Comment” button in the box to the left.

In 1957 Gerhard Küntscher presented his work on intramedullary (IM) nailing to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.  His classic JBJS paper on the subject, published in January 1958, summarized his views on this comparatively new technique and encouraged other surgeons to use it for the treatment of long bone fractures and nonunions.

Küntscher pointed out that callus was very sensitive to mechanical stresses, and therefore any treatment method should aim at complete immobilization of the fracture fragments throughout the healing process. External splints, such as plaster casts, did not achieve that, and “inner splints” fixed to the outside of the bone damaged the periosteum.

In advocating for intramedullary fixation, Küntscher was careful to distinguish nails from pins. He was very complimentary about J. and L. Rush, who developed intramedullary pinning, but he pointed out that, unlike pins, nails allowed both longitudinal elasticity and cross-sectional compressibility if they were designed with a V-profile or clover-leaf cross section. This cross-sectional elasticity allowed the nail to fit the canal and expand during bone resorption.

Not only did Küntscher appreciate the biomechanics of the intramedullary nail, but he also pointed out the physical and psychological advantages of early mobilization, particularly in the elderly. He also emphasized that massage was unnecessary—and potentially harmful—during the recovery phase, claiming that any measures that make patients more conscious of their injuries are psychologically disadvantageous.

Küntscher used intramedullary nailing to treat fractures, nonunions, and osteotomies of the femur, tibia, humerus, and forearm. He accepted that it was “a most daring” approach that would destroy the nutrient artery, but he pointed out that proper nailing almost always prevented pseudarthoses and that antibiotics had checked the threat of infection. He said further that perioperative x-rays entailed short exposures and that the “electronic fluoroscope” had, even back then, practically eliminated the risk of x-ray injury to assistants.

The paper clearly illustrates Küntscher’s widespread knowledge and innovative skills. However, it was the subsequent development of locked nails that resulted in intramedullary nailing becoming the treatment of choice for femoral and tibial fractures. Time will tell if modern orthopaedic surgeons will catch up with Küntscher and use nailing for humeral and forearm diaphyseal fractures.

Charles M Court-Brown, MD, FRCSCEd

JBJS Deputy Editor

JBJS Classics: The “Game Changer” for Managing Femoral Shaft Fractures

JBJS-Classics-logoEach month during the coming year, OrthoBuzz will bring you a current commentary on a “classic” article from The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. These articles have been selected by the Editor-in-Chief and Deputy Editors of The Journal because of their long-standing significance to the orthopaedic community and the many citations they receive in the literature. Our OrthoBuzz commentators will highlight the impact that these JBJS articles have had on the practice of orthopaedics. Please feel free to join the conversation about these classics by clicking on the “Leave a Comment” button in the box to the left.

The classic 1984 JBJS review of 520 cases of intramedullary (IM) nailing by Winquist, Hansen, and Clawson changed everything for patients with fractures of the femoral shaft.

In North America during the 1960s and 70s, the debate was all about details of traction management for femoral-shaft fractures: Balanced skeletal traction versus Perkins traction, where to place the traction pin, how many weeks until the spica cast and what type of spica cast, and whether a fracture brace was a viable option. At the same time in Europe, the Swiss orthopaedic community, which was the focal point for the AO, was advocating plate fixation to avoid “fracture disease,” pneumonia, and pulmonary emboli by mobilizing patients.

Meanwhile, Kay Clawson had traveled extensively in Europe and became aware of the outstanding results being achieved with closed, reamed, femoral nailing, as published (originally in German) by Gerhard Kuntscher.  Dr. Clawson ordered the equipment—including the reamers, intramedullary nails, and fracture table—and had them shipped to the University of Washington in Seattle.

There they sat on a pallet for more than a year until Dr. Clawson sent Bob Smith, one of the chief residents, to Europe to work with Kuntscher directly. Dr. Smith brought back the knowledge to do reamed IM nailing of the femur, and as experience increased, a Spokane farm boy turned orthopaedic resident named Ted Hansen became especially skilled at the procedure. When Dr. Hansen became an attending, he taught the procedure to another highly skilled resident, Bob Winquist.

Experience grew to the point where they were able to publish this classic manuscript with all its tips, tricks, and outcomes, including which fracture patterns could be treated without keeping patients in traction for weeks to maintain length, and which fractures required open cerclage to create length stability. During this time, there were no commercially available interlocking nails, so we developed ways to drill holes through Kuntscher rods and inserted cortical screws through them with free-hand technique. We also began retrograde nailing these fractures by increasing the bend of the rods to allow them to be inserted off the articular surface in the medial condyle.

This paper, which also carefully explains how procedures were refined as the authors’ experience grew from 1968 to 1979, ushered in the standard of care that exists today and spelled the end of traction treatment and plate fixation. It remains one of the most-cited articles in the history of musculoskeletal trauma literature.

Marc Swiontkowski, MD

JBJS Editor-in-Chief

Editor’s Choice

The article, “Guiding Femoral Rotational Growth in an Animal Model” by Arami, et al. is an intriguing variation on the common applications of guided growth in pediatric patients.  Implants that bridge the physis to inhibit growth in a given anatomic location are widely used to correct angular deformity or leg-length differences in the growing child and to decrease the need for a more invasive corrective osteotomy.

At present, correction of rotational deformity in the pediatric femur or tibia requires a derotational osteotomy and commonly six weeks of casting postoperatively. This study in rabbits demonstrates the ability of implants to alter the rotational profile in the growing femur by bridging the physis in an oblique orientation, rather than in a vertical orientation used for angular deformity correction.

The authors have elegantly demonstrated histologically the swirling or bending appearance of the physeal columns in treated femora, while controls maintained the normal linear columnar appearance of the physis.  This interesting and unique animal study lays the foundation for consideration of using oblique placement of physeal-bridging implants to guide rotational growth in skeletally immature patients, without the need for osteotomy.