PROXIMAL THIGH PAIN AFTER FEMORAL NAILINGCAUSES AND TREATMENTR. M. Dodenhoff, FRCS, Registrar; J. N. Dainton, FRCS G, Registrar; and P. M. Hutchins, FRCS, FRCS Ed(Orth), Consultant Orthopaedic SurgeonDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Royal Cornwall Hospital, Infirmary Hill, Truro, Cornwall TR1 3LJ, UK. Correspondence should be sent to Mr R. M. Dodenhoff, Senior Orthopaedic Registrar at Frenchay Hospital, Frenchay Park Road, Bristol BS16 1LE, UK. We have reviewed retrospectively 80 patients who were treated for traumatic fractures of the femur with a Grosse-Kempf nail to assess the incidence and causes of persisting pain in the proximal thigh. At a mean of 21 months after operation 33 patients had residual pain severe enough to interfere with their lifestyle or mobility. This was in the region of the scar on the greater trochanter in three-quarters of the patients. Only four showed no radiological abnormality. There was nonunion of the fracture in two, Paget’s disease in one, breakage of the nail in two and prominence of the proximal locking screw in five, although we found no correlation between prominence of the nail and pain. There was a strong relationship between pain and heterotopic ossification at the proximal end of the implant; this was present in 64% of the patients with pain as compared with those without pain (p < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test). Of the 80 patients, 27 had the implant removed after 18 months, 17 of them because of pain. In six of these 17, the pain was not relieved. Prominence of the nail proximally was not associated with pain, but protuberance of laterally-based proximal locking screws caused problems. We found a strong association between heterotopic bone formation and pain, but it is uncertain whether this is the true cause or merely an indication of some other factor such as traumatic damage to the glutei during insertion of the nail. Removal of the implant does not always cure such pain.
|
|
