Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 11/2012

01-11-2012 | Symposium: Papers Presented at the 2011 Meeting of the International Hip Society

Does PFNA II Avoid Lateral Cortex Impingement for Unstable Peritrochanteric Fractures?

Authors: George A. Macheras, MD, PhD, Stefanos D. Koutsostathis, MD, PhD, Spyridon Galanakos, MD, Konstantinos Kateros, MD, PhD, Stamatios A. Papadakis, MD, PhD

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 11/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Proximal femoral nail antirotation devices (PFNAs) are considered biomechanically superior to dynamic hip screws for treating unstable peritrochanteric fractures and reportedly have a lower complication rate. The PFNA II was introduced to eliminate lateral cortex impingement encountered with the PFNA. However, it is unclear whether the new design in fact avoids lateral cortex impingement without compromising stability of fixation and fracture healing.

Questions/Purposes

We therefore asked whether the PFNA II: (1) eliminates the lateral cortex impingement and fracture displacement experienced with PFNA; and (2) provides stable fracture fixation with a low major complication rate for unstable fractures in European patients.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 108 patients with an unstable peritrochanteric fracture, 58 treated with PFNA and 50 with PFNA II. We compared nail positioning, major and minor complication rates, operative and fluoroscopy time, blood transfused, time to mobilization, hospital stay, fracture union, and Harris hip score. The minimum followup was 12 months (mean, 13 months; range, 12–18 months).

Results

In the PFNA II group we encountered no impingement on the lateral cortex and no patients with lateral fragment or loss of reduction at insertion, whereas with the PFNA group, we had 10 and five cases, respectively. Fracture union occurred in all patients treated with PFNA II without mechanical failures. PFNA II cases were associated with a slightly shorter surgical time than PFNA cases (23 minutes versus 27 minutes, respectively).

Conclusion

PFNA II avoided lateral cortex impingement experienced with PFNA, providing fast and stable fixation of the unstable peritrochanteric fractures.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective comparative study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Literature
1.
Al-Yassari G, Langstaff RJ, Jones JWM, Al-Lami M. The AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail (PFN) for the treatment of unstable trochanteric femoral fracture. Injury. 2002;33:395–399.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Anglen JO, Weinstein JN; American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Research Committee. Nail or plate fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: changing pattern of practice. A review of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Database. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:700–707.PubMedCrossRef
3.
4.
Aros B, Tosteson AN, Gottlieb DJ, Koval KJ, Is a sliding hip screw or im nail the preferred implant for intertrochanteric fracture fixation? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:2827–2832.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Banan H, Al-Sabti A, Jimulia T, Hart AJ. The treatment of unstable, extracapsular hip fractures with the AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail (PFN): our first 60 cases. Injury. 2002;33:401–405.PubMedCrossRef
6.
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;77:1058–1064.PubMed
7.
Butler M, Forte ML, Joglekar SB, Swiontkowski MF, Kane RL. Evidence summary: systematic review of surgical treatments for geriatric hip fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93:1104–1115.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Curtis MJ, Jinnah RH, Wilson V, Cunningham BW. Proximal femoral fractures: a biomechanical study to compare intramedullary and extramedullary fixation. Injury. 1994;25:99–104.PubMedCrossRef
9.
David A, von der HD, Pommer A. Therapeutic possibilities in trochanteric fractures. Safe–fast–stable. Orthopade. 2000;29:294–301.PubMed
10.
Domingo LJ, Cecilia D, Herrera A, Resines C. Trochanteric fractures treated with a proximal femoral nail. Int Orthop. 2001;25:298–301.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Foulongne E, Gilleron M, Roussignol X, Lenoble E, Dujardin F. Mini-invasive nail versus DHS to fix pertrochanteric fractures: a case-control study. Injury. 2011;42:204–208.CrossRef
12.
Friedl W, Clausen J. [Experimental examination for optimized stabilisation of trochanteric femur fractures, intra- or extramedullary implant localisation and influence of femur neck component profile on cut-out risk] [in German]. Chirurg. 2001;72:1344–1352.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Gardenbroek TJ, Segers MJ, Simmermacher RK, Hammacher ER. The proximal femur nail antirotation: an identifiable improvement in the treatment of unstable pertrochanteric fractures? J Trauma. 2011;71:169–174.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Garg B, Marimuthu K, Kumar V, Malhotra R, Kotwal PP. Outcome of short proximal femoral nail antirotation and dynamic hip screw for fixation of unstable trochanteric fractures. A randomised prospective comparative trial. Hip Int. 2011;21:531–536.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Haidukewych GJ, Israel TA, Berry DJ. Reverse obliquity fractures of the intertrochanteric region of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:643–650.PubMed
16.
Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969;51:737–755.PubMed
17.
Kannus P, Parkkari J, Sievanen H, Heinonen A, Vuori I, Järvinen M. Epidemiology of hip fracture. Bone. 1996;18(Suppl):57S–63S.PubMedCrossRef
18.
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;43:686–693.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Kuzyk PR, Bhandari M, McKee MD, Russell TA, Schemitsch EH. Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation for subtrochanteric femur fractures J Orthop Trauma. 2009;23:465–470.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Laros GS. The role of osteoporosis in intertrochanteric fractures. Orthop Clin North Am. 1980;11:525–537.PubMed
21.
Little NJ, Verma V, Fernando C, Elliott DS, Khaleel A. A prospective trial comparing the Holland nail with the dynamic hip screw in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:1073–1078.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Liu M, Yang Z, Pei F, Huang F, Chen S, Xiang Z. A meta-analysis of the Gamma nail and dynamic hip screw in treating peritrochanteric fractures. Int Orthop. 2010;34:323–328.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Lv C, Fang Y, Liu L, Wang G, Yang T, Zhang H, Song Y. The new proximal femoral nail antirotation—Asia: early results. Orthopedics. 2011;34:351.PubMed
24.
Madsen J, Næss L, Aune A, Alho A, Ekeland A, Strømsøe K. Dynamic hip screw with trochanteric stabilizing plate in the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures: a comparative study with the Gamma nail and compression hip screw. J Orthop Trauma. 1998;12:241–248.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Muller ME, Nazarian S, Koch P, Schatzker J (1990) The Comprehensive Classification of Fractures of Long Bones. 1st ed. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, New York, NY, USA: Springer-Verlag; CrossRef
26.
Orthopaedic Trauma Association Committee for Coding and Classification. Fracture and dislocation compendium. J Orthop Trauma. 1996;10(Suppl 1):v–ix, 1–154.
27.
Pajarinen J, Lindahl J, Michelsson O, Savolainen V, Hirvensalo E. Pertrochanteric femoral fractures treated with a dynamic hip screw or a proximal femoral nail. A randomised study comparing post-operative rehabilitation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:76–81.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Panjabi MM, Lindsey RW, Walter SD, White AA 3rd. The clinician’s ability to evaluate the strength of healing fractures from plain radiographs. J Orthop Trauma. 1989;3:29–32.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Parker MJ, Handoll HH. Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;4:CD000093.
30.
Parker MJ, Handoll HH. Intramedullary nails for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;3:CD004961.
31.
Parker MJ, Handoll HH. Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;9:CD000093.
32.
Radford PJ, Needoff M, Webb JK. A prospective randomized comparison of the dynamic hip screw and the gamma locking nail. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75:789–793.PubMed
33.
Sabin S, Ertürer E, Oztürk I, Toker S, Seçkin F, Akman S, Radiographic and functional results of osteosynthesis using the proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2010;44:127–134.CrossRef
34.
Schipper IB, Marti RK, van der Werken C. Unstable trochanteric femoral fractures: extramedullary or intramedullary fixation. Review of literature. Injury. 2004;35:142–151.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Sommers MB, Roth C, Hall H, Kam BC, Ehmke LW, Krieg JC, Madey SM, Bottlang M. A laboratory model to evaluate cutout resistance of implants for pertrochanteric fracture fixation. J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18:361–368.PubMedCrossRef
36.
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;37:984–989.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Streubel PN, Wong AH, Ricci WM, Gardner MJ. Is there a standard trochanteric entry site for nailing of subtrochanteric femur fractures? J Orthop Trauma. 2011;25:202–207.PubMedCrossRef
38.
39.
Tyagi V, Yang JH, Oh KJ. A computed tomography-based analysis of proximal femoral geometry for lateral impingement with two types of proximal femoral nail anterotation in subtrochanteric fractures. Injury. 2010;41:857–861.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Verettas DA, Ifantidis P, Chatzipapas CN, Drosos GI, Xarchas KC, Chloropoulou P, Kazakos KI, Trypsianis G, Ververidis A. Systematic effects of surgical treatment of hip fractures: gliding screw-plating vs intramedullary nailing. Injury. 2010;41:279–284.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Windolf M, Braunstein V, Dutoit C, Schwieger K. Is a helical shaped implant a superior alternative to the dynamic hip screw for unstable femoral neck fractures? A biomechanical investigation. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2009;24:59–64.
42.
Xu YZ, Geng DC, Mao HQ, Zhu XS, Yang HL. A comparison of the proximal femoral nail antirotation device and dynamic hip screw in the treatment of unstable pertrochanteric fracture. J Int Med Res. 2010;38:1266–1275.PubMed
43.
Yoshimine F, Latta LL, Milne EL. Sliding characteristics of compression hip screws in the intertrochanteric fracture: a clinical study. J Orthop Trauma. 1993;7:348–353.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Ziran BH, Heckman DS, Olarte CM, Chou K, Baranick J. Intramedullary hip screw versus standard compression hip screw: early postoperative rehabilitation comparisons. Orthopedics. 2009;32:83.PubMed
45.
Zou J, Xu Y, Yang H. A comparison of proximal femoral nail antirotation and dynamic hip screw devices in trochanteric fractures. J Int Med Res. 2009;37:1057–1064.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Does PFNA II Avoid Lateral Cortex Impingement for Unstable Peritrochanteric Fractures?
Authors
George A. Macheras, MD, PhD
Stefanos D. Koutsostathis, MD, PhD
Spyridon Galanakos, MD
Konstantinos Kateros, MD, PhD
Stamatios A. Papadakis, MD, PhD
Publication date
01-11-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 11/2012
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2445-x

Other articles of this Issue 11/2012

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 11/2012 Go to the issue

Symposium: Papers Presented at the 2011 Meeting of the International Hip Society

Socket Position Determines Hip Resurfacing 10-Year Survivorship

Clinical Research

Is Routine Mid-term Total Hip Arthroplasty Surveillance Beneficial?

Symposium: Papers Presented at the 2011 Meeting of the International Hip Society

Does Impact Sport Activity Influence Total Hip Arthroplasty Durability?

Symposium: Papers Presented at the 2011 Meeting of the International Hip Society

Edge Loading Has a Paradoxical Effect on Wear in Metal-on-Polyethylene Total Hip Arthroplasties

Symposium: Papers Presented at the 2011 Meeting of the International Hip Society

Highly Crosslinked Polyethylene Does Not Reduce Aseptic Loosening in Cemented THA 10-year Findings of a Randomized Study

Orthopaedic Case of the Month

Orthopaedic Case of the Month: Pulsatile Soft Tissue Mass