Anatomy of the proximal femur for intramedullary femoral nailing

ZHANG Zhen-hua XIA Dan-hao SHEN Jian-ming WANG Yong-kui XU Gao-lei*

doi:10.16098/j.issn.0529-1356.2017.03.012

PDF(455 KB)

Acta Anatomica Sinica ›› 2017, Vol. 48 ›› Issue (3) : 322-326. DOI: 10.16098/j.issn.0529-1356.2017.03.012

Anatomy

Anatomy of the proximal femur for intramedullary femoral nailing

ZHANG Zhen-hua¹ XIA Dan-hao²SHEN Jian-ming² WANG Yong-kui¹XU Gao-lei ^1*

Author information +

History +

Abstract

Objective To standardize the terminology related to the entry point and to explore the relationship between the proximal femoral bone markers and the surrounding soft tissues. Methods Previous publications about the suggested entry point for antegrade femoral nailing were reviewed and special attention was paid to “trochanteric fossa” and“piriform fossa”. The relationship between the trochanteric fossa but the greater trochanter in 130 Chinese adult dried femurs was analyzed. Twenty cadaveric lower limb specimens were dissected toobserve proximal femur soft tissue attachments and to measure data related with piriform muscle, internal and external obturator muscle. Results Firstly, the trochanteric fossa but not the piriform fossa was the standard entry point. Secondly, in 3.85% of the cases a shape with a free entry point was found, whereas 76.15% of the specimens were defined by a laterally projecting spine. In 20.00% cases the entry points was partially covered. Thirdly, the means of the vertical and horizontal widths of the piriformis tendon were (6.74±1.21)mm and(4.29±1.37)mm, respectively. The means of the vertical and horizontal widths of the obturator internus tendon were (6.36±1.74)mm and(5.74±1.61)mm, respectively. The means of the vertical and horizontal widths of the obturator external tendon were (6.26±1.13) mm and(4.57±1.26)mm, respectively. Fourthly, the mean distances of the anterior and posterior edges of the piriformis tendon attachment from the posterior limit of the greater trochanter, defined as a percentage of the anteroposterior length of the greater trochanter in this study, were(57.9±8.8)% and(43.8±8.7)%, respectively. Equivalent mean distances for the obturator internus attachment were (65.6±7.3)%and (52.6±6.9)%, respectively. Conclusion Piriform fossa should be named as Trochanteric fossa. Because of the various relationships between the trochanteric fossa and the greater trochanter, the entry point is variable, and the trochanteric fossa can not be considered as a general entry point. Quantitative data about tendons is helpful to optimize surgical approaches.

Key words

Intramedullary femoral nailing / Short external rotator / Trochanteric fossa / Proximal femur / Anatomical measurement / Adult

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

ZHANG Zhen-hua XIA Dan-hao SHEN Jian-ming WANG Yong-kui XU Gao-lei. Anatomy of the proximal femur for intramedullary femoral nailing[J]. Acta Anatomica Sinica. 2017, 48(3): 322-326 https://doi.org/10.16098/j.issn.0529-1356.2017.03.012

References

［1］Moein CMA, Verhofstad MHJ, Bleys RLAW, et al. Soft tissue anatomy around the hip and its implications for choice of entry point in antegrade femoral nailing［J］. Clin Anat, 2008, 21(6):568-574.

［2］Kale SP, Patil N, Pilankar S, et al. Correct anatomical location of entry point for antegrade femoral nailing［J］. Injury, 2006, 37(10):990-993.

［3］Moein CMSA, Gerrits PD, Duis HJT. Trochanteric fossa or piriform fossa of the femur: Time for standardised terminology ［J］ ? Injury, 2013, 44(6):722-725.

［4］Tamaki T, Nimura A, Oinuma K, et al. An anatomic study of the impressions on the greater trochanter: bony geometry indicates the alignment of the short external rotator muscles［J］. J Arthroplasty, 2013, 29(12):2473-2477.

［5］Grechenig W, Pichler W, Clement H, et al. Anatomy of the greater femoral trochanter: clinical importance for intramedullary femoral nailing. Anatomic study of 100 cadaver specimens［J］. Acta Orthop, 2006, 77(6):899-901.

［6］Farhang K, Desai R, Wilber JH, et al. An anatomical study of the entry point in the greater trochanter for intramedullary nailing［J］. Bone Joint J, 2014, 96-B(9):1274-1281.

［7］Ito Y, Matsushita I, Watanabe H, et al. Anatomic mapping of short external rotators shows the limit of their preservation during total hip arthroplasty［J］. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2012, 470(6):1690-1695.

［8］Papadakis SA, Shepherd L, Babourda EC, et al. Piriform and trochanteric fossae. A drawing mismatch or a terminology error? A review［J］. Surg Radiol Anat, 2005, 27(3):223-226.［9］Gray H, Standring S, Borley NR, et al. Gray’s anatomy : the anatomical basis of clinical practice［J］. Current Anaesthesia and Critical Care, 2004, 21(4):211-214.

［10］Ricci WM, Derinney S, Haidukewych G, et al. Trochanteric nail insertion for the treatment of femoral ahaft fractures［J］. J Orthop Trauma, 2005, 19(8):511-517.

［11］Lang MJ, Wachsmuth MW, Regio femoris. In: Lang J, Wachsmuth W, eds. der Oberschenkel［M］. Berlin: Bein Und Statik, Springer-Verlag, 1972: 190-214.

［12］Hansen ST, Winquist RA. Closed intramedullary nailing of the femur. Kuntscher technique with reaming［J］. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1979, 138(138):56-61.

［13］RA Winquist, ST Hansen, DK Clawson. Closed intramedullary nailing of femoral fractures. A report of 520 cases［J］. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 1984, 66(4):529-539.

［14］Miller SD, Burkart B, Damson E, et al. The effect of the entry hole for an intramedullary nail on the strength of the proximal femur［J］. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 1993, 75(2):202-206.［15］Linke B, Ansari MC, Bsl O, et al. Lateral insertion points in antegrade femoral nailing and their influence on femoral bone strains［J］. J Orthop Trauma, 2008, 22(10):716-722.

［16］Ansari MC, ten Duis HJ, Oey L, et al. Functional outcome after antegrade femoral nailing: a comparison of trochanteric fossa versus tip of greater trochanter entry point.［J］. J Orthop Trauma, 2011, 25(4):196-201.

［17］Moein CMA, Duis HJT, Oey PL, et al. Intramedullary femoral nailing through the trochanteric fossa versus greater trochanter tip : a randomized controlled study with in-depth functional outcome results［J］. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg, 2011, 37(6):615-622.

［18］Georgiadis GM, Olexa TA, Ebraheim NA. Entry sites for antegrade femoral nailing［J］. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1996, (330):281-287.

［19］Gardner MJ, Robertson WJ, Boraiah S, et al. Anatomy of the greater trochanteric ‘bald spot’: a potential portal for abductor sparing femoral nailing ［J］? Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2008, 466(9):2196-2200.

［20］Philippon MJ, Michalski MP, Campbell KJ, et al. Surgically relevant bony and soft tissue anatomy of the proximal femur［J］. Orthop J Sports Med, 2014, 2(6)：2325967114535188.

［21］Tamaki T, Nimura A, Oinuma K, et al. An anatomic study of the impressions on the greater trochanter: bony geometry indicates the alignment of the short external rotator muscles［J］. J Arthroplasty, 2013, 29(12):2473-2477.

［22］Pine J, Binns M, Wright P, et al. Piriformis and obturator internus morphology: A cadaveric study［J］. Clin Anat, 2011, 24(1):70-76.

［23］Roche JJ, Jones CD, Khan RJ, et al. The surgical anatomy of the piriformis tendon, with particular reference to total hip replacement: a cadaver study［J］. Bone Joint J, 2013, 95-B(6):764-769.