ObjectiveTo evaluate iliopsoas atrophy and loss of function after displaced lesser trochanter fracture of the hip.DesignCohort study.SettingDistrict hospital.PatientsTwenty consecutive patients with pertrochanteric fracture and displacement of the lesser trochanter of > 20 mm.InterventionFracture fixation with either an intramedullary nail or a plate.Outcome measurementsClinical scores (Harris hip, WOMAC), hip flexion strength measurements, and magnetic resonance imaging findings.ResultsCompared with the contralateral non-operated side, the affected side showed no difference in hip flexion force in the supine upright neutral position and at 30° of flexion (205.4 N vs 221.7 N and 178.9 N vs. 192.1 N at 0° and 30° flexion, respectively). However, the affected side showed a significantly greater degree of fatty infiltration compared with the contralateral side (global fatty degeneration index 1.085 vs 0.784), predominantly within the psoas and iliacus muscles.ConclusionSevere displacement of the lesser trochanter (> 20 mm) in pertrochanteric fractures did not reduce hip flexion strength compared with the contralateral side. Displacement of the lesser trochanter in such cases can lead to fatty infiltration of the iliopsoas muscle unit. The amount of displacement of the lesser trochanter did not affect the degree of fatty infiltration.Level of evidenceII.

Fatty muscle degeneration of the iliopsoas muscle complex after pertrochanteric femoral fracture was evident using both classification systems; however, fatty muscle degeneration resulted in only a minimal reduction of muscle strength. To provide a thorough assessment of iliopsoas muscle complex quality, we suggest evaluating it at different anatomical levels. Regarding inter-reader agreement, the Slabaugh classification was superior to the Goutallier classification.

Background: Limb preservation in musculoskeletal tumor surgery has largely replaced amputation. Biologic reconstructions are now performed as preferred choice; if not feasible options are "megaprostheses", allografts or composites. Endoprosthetic reconstructions usually provide immediate function, but fail at long term. Osteochondral allografts allow for one-to-one restoration and have potential for incorporation; however degeneration of the cartilage requiring revision almost inevitably will occur. In most cases, revision is then done by endoprosthetic replacement. Aim: In our patients, resurfacing of retained allografts failed. Problems encountered are presented and solutions proposed. Case Presentation: Resurfacing over retained allografts in the 2 index cases has resulted in failures related to fractures and instability. Revision with massive constrained endoprostheses was needed. Based on the experience with these failures, primary endoprosthetic replacement anchored in vital bone in a following case resulted in stable function. Conclusion: Knee replacement for advanced degeneration of the osteochondral allograft apparently needs choosing increased femoro-tibial constraint systems and stem extensions anchored to vital host bone.

No abstract