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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery
Published in: European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery 5/2020

01-10-2020 | Femoral Fracture | Original Article

PFNA and DHS for AO/OTA 31-A2 fractures: radiographic measurements, morbidity and mortality

Authors: Franz Müller, Matthias Doblinger, Tanja Kottmann, Bernd Füchtmeier

Published in: European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery | Issue 5/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

For this retrospective cohort study, we assessed pertrochanteric fracture types AO/OTA 31-A2. PFNA and DHS were the devices used. We determined both devices in relation to peri-operative variables, postoperative radiographic measurements, implant-related complications and mortality up to 2 years. The null hypothesis was no effect between the two devices.

Methods

This single-centre study was conducted based on our computerized data. The treatment period ranged from 2006 to 2015. Only patients with type AO/OTA 31-A2 fractures and an age ≥ 65 years were included. Apart from descriptive variables, the following measurements were assessed: (1) duration of surgery, (2) blood loss, (3) transfusion, (4) hospitalization, (5) tip-apex distance (TAD), (6) fracture reduction, (7) screw position, (8) implant-related complications, and (9) mortality. The follow-up was 2 years for each living patient. Missing data were evaluated by telephone call.

Results

A total of 375 consecutive patients were enrolled into three groups: (1) 75 patients treated with DHS and antirotation screw (ARS); (2); 100 patients treated with DHS + ARS + TSP (trochanteric stabilization plate); and (3) 200 patients treated with PFNA. Apart from dementia, the descriptive data (e.g., age and BMI) demonstrated no effects between the three groups. Compared to PFNA, DHS with or without TSP was adversely affected by a longer operation time, higher blood loss, increase in transfusion, and more implant-related complications including cut-out, infection and failure. The rate of cut-out was significantly higher in TAD ≥ 25 mm (p = 0.005), and PFNA demonstrated significantly better TAD measurements (p = 0.001), better fracture reduction (0.002), more central-central screw positions (p = 0.014), and less poor screw placement (p = 0.001). The mortality rate was without effect between the three groups (log rank 0.698).

Conclusions

DHS with or without TSP was associated with significantly higher rates of implant-related complications based on inferior radiographic measurements. Therefore, we only recommend PFNA for the treatment of proximal type AO/OTA 31-A2 femoral fractures.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic level III.
Literature
1.
Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J, et al. Fracture and dislocation classification compendium—2007: Orthopaedic Trauma Association Classification, Database and Outcomes Committee. J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21(Supplement 10):S1–S163.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Bhandari M, Schemitsch E, Jönsson A, et al. Gamma nails revisited: gamma nails versus compression hip screws in the management of intertrochanteric fractures of the hip: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma. 2009;23:460–4.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Shen L, Zhang Y, Shen Y, et al. Antirotation proximal femoral nail versus dynamic hip screw for intertrochanteric fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013;99:377–83.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Tucker A, Donnelly KJ, Rowan C, et al. Is the best plate a nail? A review of 3230 unstable intertrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur. J Orthop Trauma. 2018;32:53–60.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Barton TM, Gleeson R, Topliss C, et al. A comparison of the long nail with the sliding hip screw for the treatment of AO/OTA 31–A2 fractures of the proximal part of the femur: a prospective randomized trial. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2010;92:792–8.CrossRef
6.
Jonnes C, Sm S, Najimudeen S. Type II intertrochanteric fractures: proximal femoral nailing (PFN) versus dynamic hip screw (DHS). Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2016;4:23–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Zehir S, Zehir R, Zehir S, et al. Proximal femoral nail antirotation against dynamic hip screw for unstable trochanteric fractures; a prospective randomized comparison. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2015;41:393–400.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zhang K, Zhang S, Yang J, et al. Proximal femoral nail vs. dynamic hip screw in treatment of intertrochanteric fractures: a meta-analysis. Med Sci Monit. 2014;12:1628–33.
9.
Ma KL, Wang X, Luan FJ, et al. Proximal femoral nails antirotation, Gamma nails, and dynamic hip screws for fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of femur: a meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014;100:859–66.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zhu Q, Xu X, Yang X, et al. Intramedullary nails versus sliding hip screws for AO/OTA 31-A2 trochanteric fractures in adults: a meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2017;43:67–74.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Liu Y, Tao R, Liu F, et al. Mid-term outcomes after intramedullary fixation of peritrochanteric femoral fractures using the new proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA). Injury. 2010;41:810–7.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Boldin C, Seibert FJ, Fankhauser F, et al. The proximal femoral nail (PFN) - a minimal invasive treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures: a prospective study of 55 patients with a follow-up of 15 months. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003;74:53–8.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Kumar R, Singh RN, Singh BN. Comparative prospective study of proximal femoral nail and dynamic hip screw in treatment of intertrochanteric fracture femur. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2012;3:28–36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Saudan M, Lübbeke A, Sadowski C, et al. Pertrochanteric fractures: is there an advantage to an intramedullary nail? A randomized, prospective study of 206 patients comparing the dynamic hip screw and proximal femoral nail. J Orthop Trauma. 2002;16:386–93.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Reindl R, Harvey EJ, Berry GK, Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society (COTS), et al. Intramedullary verus extramedullary fixation for unstable intertrochenteric fractures: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2015;97:1905–12.CrossRef
16.
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;37:1057–64.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Simmermacher RK, Ljungqvist J, Bail H, AO-PFNA studygroup, et al. The new proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) in daily practice: results of a multicentre clinical study. Injury. 2008;39:932–9.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM. Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation for the treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;348:87–94.CrossRef
19.
Cleveland M, Bosworth DM, Thompson FR, et al. A 10-year analysis of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 1959;41:1399–408.CrossRef
20.
Parvizi J, Zmistowski B, Berbari EF, et al. New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:2992–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Parker MJ. Cutting-out of the dynamic hip screw related to its position. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 1992;74:625.CrossRef
22.
Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Statist Assoc. 1958;53:457–81.CrossRef
23.
American Society of Anesthesiology. New classification of physical status. Anesthesiology. 1963;24:111–4.
24.
Lenich A, Vester H, Nerlich M, et al. Clinical comparison of the second and third generation of intramedullary devices for trochanteric fractures of the hip—blade vs screw. Injury. 2010;41:1292–6.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Yu W, Zhang X, Zhu X, et al. Proximal femoral nails anti-rotation versus dynamic hip screws for treatment of stable intertrochanteric femur fractures: an outcome analyses with a minimum 4 years of follow-up. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;21(17):222.CrossRef
26.
Galler M, Zellner M, Roll C, et al. A prospective study with 10 years follow-up of two-hundred patients with proximal femoral fracture. Injury. 2018;49:841–5.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Mereddy P, Kamath S, Ramakrishnan M, et al. The AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA): a new design for the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures. Injury. 2009;40:428–32.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Mundi S, Chaudhry H, Bhandari M. Systemic review on the inclusion of patients with cognitive impairment in hip fractures trials: a missed opportunity? Can J Surg. 2014;57:E141–E145145.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Hsu CE, Chiu YC, Tsai SH, et al. Trochanter stabilising plate improves treatment outcomes in AO/OTA 31-A2 intertrochanteric fractures with critical thin femoral lateral walls. Injury. 2015;46:1047–53.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Puram C, Pradhan C, Patil A, et al. Outcome of dynamic hip screw augmented with trochanteric wiring for tretement of unstable type A2 intertrochanteric femur fractures. Injury. 2017;48(Suppl 2):S72–S7777.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Geller JA, Saifi C, Morrison TA, Macaulay W. Tip-apex distance of intramedullary devices as a predictor of cut-out failure in the treatment of pertrochanteric elderly hip fractures. Int Orthop. 2010;34:719–22.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Fujii T, Nakayama S, Hara M, et al. Tip-apex distance is most important of six predictors of screw cutout after internal fixation of intertrochanteric fractures in woman. JBJS Open Access. 2017;2:e0022.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Lenich A, Bachmeier S, Prantl L, et al. Is the rotation of the femoral head a potential initiation for cuting out? A theoretical and experimental approach. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:79.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
PFNA and DHS for AO/OTA 31-A2 fractures: radiographic measurements, morbidity and mortality
Authors
Franz Müller
Matthias Doblinger
Tanja Kottmann
Bernd Füchtmeier
Publication date
01-10-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery / Issue 5/2020
Print ISSN: 1863-9933
Electronic ISSN: 1863-9941
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-019-01251-w

Other articles of this Issue 5/2020

European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery 5/2020 Go to the issue

Review Article

Immune capacity determines outcome following surgery or trauma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Original Article

Terminal position of a tibial intramedullary nail: a computed tomography (CT) based study

Original Article

Masquelet technique for open tibia fractures in a military setting

Letter to the Editor

Simplified visual aid to detect early CT findings in COVID-19 pneumonia for non-radiologists

Original Article

External fixation of segmental tibial shaft fractures

Original Article

Extra-parenchymal splenic abnormalities not vascular injury predict need for primary splenectomy