search for




 

Comparison of osteoporotic intertrochanteric fracture fixation using a proximal femoral nail with a helical blade and lag screw type proximal femoral nail
Med Biol Sci Eng 2018;1(2):45-50
Published online July 31, 2018
© 2018 Medical Biological Science and Engineering.

Woong Chae Na1, Chae Won Lim2, Sang Hong Lee2

1Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Gwangju Suwan Hospital, 2Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chosun University Hospital, Gwangju, Korea
Correspondence to: Sang Hong Lee
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chosun University Hospital, 365 Pilmun-daero, Dong-gu, Gwangju 61453, Korea
Tel: +82-62-220-3147
Fax: +82-62-226-3379
E-mail: shalee@chosun.ac.kr
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2258-1147
Received April 17, 2018; Revised May 16, 2018; Accepted May 16, 2018.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to compare clinical and radiological results between the helical blade lag screw (proximal femoral nail antirotation II [PFNA II]) and the traditional lag screw (Zimmer Natural Nail [ZNN]) in the operative treatment of osteoporotic femur intertrochanteric fractures. We selected 182 patients who could be observed for at least 1 year from among 352 patients who received surgical treatment for osteoporotic isolated femur intertrochanteric fractures between January 2013 and December 2016. The PFNA II was applied in 110 cases, and the ZNN in 72 cases. We evaluated operation time, bleeding amount, quality of reduction, tip apex distance, bone union time, sliding distance, and lag screw position. The mean operation times and bleeding volumes were respectively 38minutes and 224 mL for PFNA II, and 42 minutes and 234 mL for ZNN. The quality of reduction was good, acceptable, and poor in 71%, 25%, and 4% for PFNA II, and 68%, 31%, and 1% for ZNN, respectively. The mean tip apex distances, bone union times, and sliding distances were respectively 21.1 and 20.7 mm, 12.4 and 12.9 weeks, and 4.2 and 3.9 mm. The lag screw position was acceptable and poor in 95% and 5% for PFNA II, and 97% and 3% for ZNN, respectively. The design of the lag screw did not influence the surgical outcome in the osteoporotic isolated femur intertrochanteric fractures. Therefore, choice of the proximal femoral nail can safely be made according to surgeon preference.
Keywords : Femur; Intertrochanteric fracture; Proximal femur nail; Proximal femoral nail antirotation; Zimmer Natural Nail
References
  1. Yoon BH, Lee YK, Kim SC, Kim SH, Ha YC, Koo KH. Epidemiology of proximal femoral fractures in South Korea. Arch Osteoporos 2013;8:157.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Hornby R, Evans JG, Vardon V. Operative or conservative treatment for trochanteric fractures of the femur. A randomised epidemiological trial in elderly patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1989;71:619-23.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Kyle RF, Cabanela ME, Russell TA, Swiontkowski MF, Winquist RA, Zuckerman JD, et al. Fractures of the proximal part of the femur. Instr Course Lect 1995;44:227-53.
    Pubmed
  4. Siegmeth AW, Gurusamy K, Parker MJ. Delay to surgery prolongs hospital stay in patients with fractures of the proximal femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005;87:1123-6.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Utrilla AL, Reig JS, Muñoz FM, Tufanisco CB. Trochanteric gamma nail and compression hip screw for trochanteric fractures:a randomized, prospective, comparative study in 210 elderly patients with a new design of the gamma nail. J Orthop Trauma 2005;19:229-33.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Aune AK, Ekeland A, Odegaard B, Grøgaard B, Alho A. Gamma nail vs compression screw for trochanteric femoral fractures. 15 reoperations in a prospective, randomized study of 378 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 1994;65:127-30.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Huang X, Leung F, Xiang Z, Tan PY, Yang J, Wei DQ, et al. Proximal femoral nail versus dynamic hip screw fixation for trochanteric fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. ScientificWorldJournal 2013;2013:805805.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Carulli C, Piacentini F, Paoli T, Civinini R, Innocenti M. A comparison of two fixation methods for femoral trochanteric fractures: a new generation intramedullary system vs sliding hip screw. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab 2017;14:40-7.
  9. Parker MJ. Trochanteric hip fractures. Fixation failure commoner with femoral medialization, a comparison of 101 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 1996;67:329-32.
    CrossRef
  10. Pajarinen J, Lindahl J, Savolainen V, Michelsson O, Hirvensalo E. Femoral shaft medialisation and neck-shaft angle in unstable pertrochanteric femoral fractures. Int Orthop 2004;28:347-53.
    CrossRef
  11. Kokoroghiannis C, Aktselis I, Deligeorgis A, Fragkomichalos E, Papadimas D, Pappadas I. Evolving concepts of stability and intramedullary fixation of intertrochanteric fractures--a review. Injury 2012;43:686-93.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Mereddy P, Kamath S, Ramakrishnan M, Malik H, Donnachie N. The AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA):a new design for the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures. Injury 2009;40:428-32.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Strauss E, Frank J, Lee J, Kummer FJ, Tejwani N. Helical blade versus sliding hip screw for treatment of unstable intertrochanteric hip fractures: a biomechanical evaluation. Injury 2006;37:984-9.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Ito K, Hungerbuhler R, Wahl D, Grass R. Improved intramedullary nail interlocking in osteoporotic bone. J Orthop Trauma 2001;15:192-6.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  15. Fogagnolo F, Kfuri M Jr, Paccola CA. Intramedullary fixation of pertrochanteric hip fractures with the short AO-ASIF proximal femoral nail. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2004;124:31-7.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Cleveland M, Bosworth DM, Thompson FR, Wilson HJ Jr, Ishizuka T. A ten-year analysis of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1959;41-A:1399-408.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM, Keggi JM. The value of the tip-apex distance in predicting failure of fixation of peritrochanteric fractures of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1995;77:1058-64.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Kim JH, Shon OJ. Comparative study of proximal femoral nail antirotation and zimmer natural nail for the treatment of stable intertrochanteric fractures. J Korean Fract Soc 2013;26:30513.
  19. Hardy DC, Descamps PY, Krallis P, Fabeck L, Smets P, Bertens CL, et al. Use of an intramedullary hip-screw compared with a compression hip-screw with a plate for intertrochanteric femoral fractures. A prospective, randomized study of one hundred patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998;80:618-30.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. Leung KS, So WS, Shen WY, Hui PW. Gamma nails and dynamic hip screws for peritrochanteric fractures. A randomised prospective study in elderly patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1992;74:345-51.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Lindsey RW, Teal P, Probe RA, Rhoads D, Davenport S, Schauder K. Early experience with the gamma interlocking nail for peritrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur. J Trauma 1991;31:1649-58.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Radford PJ, Needoff M, Webb JK. A prospective randomised comparison of the dynamic hip screw and the gamma locking nail. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1993;75:789-93.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  23. Sung YB, Sohn YJ, Yum JK, Chung HJ, Ahn JK, Lee SL et al. Proximal femoral nail(PFN) for intertrochanteric fracuture:long-term follow-up results. J Korean Hip Soc 2005;17:141-8.
  24. Luo Q, Yuen G, Lau TW, Yeung K, Leung F. A biomechanical study comparing helical blade with screw design for sliding hip fixations of unstable intertrochanteric fractures. ScientificWorldJournal 2013;2013:351936.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  25. Kim SS, Lee KY, Kim CH, Lee MJ, Wang L, Kim HJ, et al. Comparison of the dyna locking trochanteric nail, proximal femoral nail antirotation and gamma 3 nail in treatment of intertrochanteric fracture of the femur. Hip Pelvis 2013;25:211-9.
    CrossRef


July 2018, 1 (2)
Full Text(PDF) Free

Social Network Service
Services

Cited By Articles
  • CrossRef (0)
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar
  • ORCID