Treatment of Complex Femoral Fractures with the Long Intramedullary Gamma Nail

Open access


The purpose of the current study was to present the authors’ experiences with the long intramedullary Gamma nail in the treatment of patients with complex femoral fractures. This retrospective study included 48 patients with complex femoral fractures. All patients had received fracture fixation treatments with long intramedullary Gamma nails from January 2007 to December 2015. The complex fractures of all patients were classified into 3 types, according to the anatomical locations of the fractures. Type I included combined fractures of the shaft and the proximal femur. Type II included segmental fractures. Type III included combined fractures of the shaft and distal femur. According to the Harris Hip Score, 85.4% of our patients had excellent and very good functional outcomes of the operative procedure. Complications occurred in 7 (14.58%) patients. The most common complications occurred in patients with combined fractures of the shaft and distal femur (50%). Based on the findings of this study, we conclude that the clinical and radiological results after the treatment of complex femoral fractures with the long intramedullary Gamma nail show good outcomes, with a high rate of bone union and minimal soft tissue damage. Experience with this procedure is important to prevent and minimise technical complications.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Melton 3rd LJ Gabriel SE Crowson CS et al. Cost-equivalence of different osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2003; 14: 383-8.

  • 2. Rüedi TP Murphy WM. AO principles of fracture management. Stuttgart: Thieme. 2000; 441-4.

  • 3. Morris AH Zuckerman JD American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Council of Health Policy and Practice. National Consensus Conference on Improving the Continuum of Care for Patients with Hip Fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002; 84:670–4.

  • 4. Davidovitch RI Jordan CJ Egol KA et al. Challenges in the treatment of femoral neck fractures in the nonelderly adult. J Trauma. 2010; 68(1):236-42.

  • 5. Abdel MP Houdek MT Watts CD Lewallen DG Berry DJ. Epidemiology of periprosthetic femoral fractures in 5417 revision total hip arthroplasties. Bone Joint J. 2016; 98(4):468-74.

  • 6. Shane E Burr D Ebeling PR et al. Atypical subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femoral fractures: report of a task force of the American society for bone and mineral research. J Bone Miner Res. 2010; 25:2267–94.

  • 7. Bone LB Johnson KD Weigelt J Scheinberg R. Early versus delayed stabilization of femoral fractures. A prospective randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989; 71:336–40.

  • 8. Pervez H Parker MJ. Results of the long Gamma nail for complex proximal femoral fractures. Injury. 2001; 32(9):704-7.

  • 9. Nellaiyappan B Ramesh Vyravan P Mohankumar M Doraikumar R. Complex Femoral Fractures - An Analysis. Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences. 2016; 15(3):10-5.

  • 10. 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 Orthopaedica Scandinavica 1994; 65(2):127-30.

  • 11. Halder SC. The Gamma nail for peritrochanteric fractures. Bone & Joint Journal. 1992; 74(3):340-4.

  • 12. van Doorn R Stapert JW. The long gamma nail in the treatment of 329 subtrochanteric fractures with major extension into the femoral shaft. European Journal of Surgery. 2000; 166(3):240-6.

  • 13. Leung KS So WS Shen WY Hui PW. Gamma nails and dynamic hip screws from peritrochanteric fractures. A randomized propective study in elderly patients. J Bone Joint Surg. 1992; 74-B-:345-51.

  • 14. 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. Bone & Joint Journal. 1991; 73(2):330-4.

  • 15. Parker MJ Pryor GA. Gamma versus DHS nailing for extracapsular femoral fractures. Meta-analysis of ten randomized trials Int Orthop. 1996; 20:163-8.

  • 16. Radford PJ Needoff M Webb JK. A prospective randomized comparison of the dynamic hip screw and the Gamma locking nail. J Bone Joint Surg. 1993; 75-B:789-93.

  • 17. Bhandari M Schemitsch E Jönsson A Zlowodzki M Haidukewych GJ. Gamma nails revisited: gamma nails versus compression hip screws in the management of intertrochanteric fractures of the hip: a meta-analysis. Journal of orthopaedic trauma. 2009; 23(6):460-4.

  • 18. Kempf I Grosse A Taglang G Favreul E. Gamma nail in the treatment of closed trochanteric fractures. Results and indications of 121 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014; 100(1):75-83.

  • 19. Hesse B Gächter A. Complications following the treatment of trochanteric fractures with the gamma nail. Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery. 2004; 124(10):692-8.

  • 20. Gadegone WM Salphale YS. Proximal femoral nail: an analysis of 100 cases of proximal femoral fractures with an average follow up of 1 year. Int Orthop. 2007; 31:403–8.

  • 21. Strauss EJ Kummer FJ Koval KJ Egol KA. The “Z-effect” phenomenon defined: a laboratory study. J Orthop Res. 2007; 25:1568–73.

  • 22. Wamper KE Sierevelt IN Poolman RW Bhandari M Haverkamp D. The Harris hip score: Do ceiling effects limit its usefulness in orthopedics?: A systematic review. Acta Orthopaedica. 2010; 81(6):703-7.

  • 23. Russell GV Kregor PJ Jarrett CA Zlowodzki M. Complicated femoral shaft fractures. Orthopedic Clinics. 2002; 33(1):127-42.

  • 24. Warwick DJ Crichlow TPKR Langkamer VG Jackson M. The dynamic condylar screw in the management of subtrochanteric fracture of the femur. Injury. 1995; 26:241–4.

  • 25. Siebenrock KA Muller U Ganz R. Indirect reduction with a condylar blade plate for osteosynthesis of subtrochanteric femoral fractures. Injury. 1998; 29(Suppl. 3):7–15.

  • 26. Teitge RA. Subtrochanteric fracture of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg. 1976;58-A:282.

  • 27. Pankovich AM Trabishy IE. Ender nailing of intertrochanteric and sub trochantric fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg. 1980;62-A:635–45.

  • 28. Docquier PL Manche E Autrique JC Geulette B. Complications associated with gamma nailing: a review of 439 cases. Acta Orthopaedica Belgica. 2002; 68(3):251-7.

  • 29. Borens O Wettstein M Kombot C Chevalley F Mouhsine E Garofalo R. Long gamma nail in the treatment of subtrotrochanteric fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2004; 124:443-7.

  • 30. Ramakrishnan M Prasad SS Parkinson RW Kaye JC. Management of subtrochanteric femoral fractures and metastases using long proximal femoral nail. Injury. 2004; 35:184-90.

  • 31. Sehat K Baker RP Pattison G Price R Harries WJ Chesser TJS. The use of the long gamma nail in proximal femoral fractures. Injury. 2005; 36(11):1350-4.

  • 32. Middleton RG McNab IS Hashemi-Nejad A Noordeen MH. Multiple guide wire technique for removal of a short distal fragment of a fractured intramedullary nail. Injury 1993; 24:357–8.

  • 33. Aktselis I Kokoroghiannis C Fragkomichalos E et al. Prospective randomised ontrolled trial of an intramedullary nail versus a sliding hip screw for intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. Int Orthop. 2014; 38(1):155-61.

  • 34. Zhang L Liu D Wu ZD He S Huang ZY Wang YJ. Biomechanical analysis of locking Gamma nail in treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures. Orthop J China. 2010; 18:1028-9.

  • 35. Zhang L Shen J Chen S et al. Treatment of unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures with locking gamma nail (LGN): A retrospective cohort study. International Journal of Surgery. 2016; 26:12-17.

  • 36. Min WK Kim SY Kim TK et al. Proximal femoral nail for the treatment of reverse obliquity intertrochanteric fractures compared with gamma nail. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 2007; 63(5):1054-60.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.13

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.118
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.079

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 111 90 3
PDF Downloads 91 75 2