Expandable Proximal Femoral Nail versus Gamma Proximal Femoral Nail for the treatment of hip reverse oblique fractures.
Expendable Proximal Femoral Nail (EPFN)
Gamma 3 Proximal Femoral Nail (GPFN)
Hip fracture
Intramedullary nail
Proximal femoral fracture
Reverse oblique fracture
Journal
Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery
ISSN: 1434-3916
Titre abrégé: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9011043
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2022
May 2022
Historique:
received:
06
04
2020
accepted:
06
12
2020
pubmed:
9
1
2021
medline:
13
4
2022
entrez:
8
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Reverse oblique intertrochanteric fractures are classified by the AO/OTA as 31A3 and account for 2-23% of all trochanteric fractures. The Gamma 3-Proximal Femoral Nail (GPFN) and the Expendable Proximal Femoral Nail (EPFN) are among the various devises used to treat this fracture. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes and complication rates in patients with AO/OTA 31A1-3 fractures, treated by either a GPFN or an EPFN. A total of 67 patients (40 in the GPFN group and 27 in the EPFN group, average age 78.8 years) were treated in our institution between July 2008 and February 2016. Data on postoperative radiological variables, including peg location and tip-apex distance (TAD), as well as orthopedic complications, such as union rate, surgical wound infection and cut-outs rates were also recorded, along with the incidence of non-orthopedic complications and more surgical data. Functional results were evaluated and quantified using the Modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS) and by the Short Form 12 Mental Health Composite questionnaire (SF-12 MHC) in order to assess the quality of life. The total prevalence of postoperative orthopedic complications including postoperative infection showed a significant difference with a p-value of 0.016 in favor of the EPFN group. Nonetheless, the frequency of revision did not differ between the two groups, being 0.134. The main orthopedic complication in both groups was head cut-out of the GPFN lag screw and the EPFN expendable peg, which was 20% and 7.4%, respectively, and required a revision surgery using a long nail or total hip replacement (THR). However, the average TAD did not significantly differ between groups which might be due to a relatively low cohort to reach a significant difference. Nonunion rate of 5% occurred solely in the GPFN group, with similar results of intraoperative open reduction between both groups. The EPFN group achieved better scores in both questionnaires (p = 0.027 and p = 0.046, respectively). Both the MHHS and SF-12 MCS values significantly differed between groups, with the EPFN group achieving better scores than the GPFN group in both questionnaires (p = 0.027 and p < 0.05, respectively). According to this study, the EPFN yields better results in comparison with the GPFN, with relatively less complications rate, for the treatment of unstable reverse oblique pertrochanteric fracture. In light of this results, we conclude that the EPFN might be as good as GPFN for the treatment of reverse oblique intertrochanteric fractures. Level III retrospective study. The local institutional review board of the Tel Aviv Medical Center approved this study and all the surgeries were done exclusively in this institution.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Reverse oblique intertrochanteric fractures are classified by the AO/OTA as 31A3 and account for 2-23% of all trochanteric fractures. The Gamma 3-Proximal Femoral Nail (GPFN) and the Expendable Proximal Femoral Nail (EPFN) are among the various devises used to treat this fracture. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes and complication rates in patients with AO/OTA 31A1-3 fractures, treated by either a GPFN or an EPFN.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
METHODS
A total of 67 patients (40 in the GPFN group and 27 in the EPFN group, average age 78.8 years) were treated in our institution between July 2008 and February 2016. Data on postoperative radiological variables, including peg location and tip-apex distance (TAD), as well as orthopedic complications, such as union rate, surgical wound infection and cut-outs rates were also recorded, along with the incidence of non-orthopedic complications and more surgical data. Functional results were evaluated and quantified using the Modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS) and by the Short Form 12 Mental Health Composite questionnaire (SF-12 MHC) in order to assess the quality of life.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The total prevalence of postoperative orthopedic complications including postoperative infection showed a significant difference with a p-value of 0.016 in favor of the EPFN group. Nonetheless, the frequency of revision did not differ between the two groups, being 0.134. The main orthopedic complication in both groups was head cut-out of the GPFN lag screw and the EPFN expendable peg, which was 20% and 7.4%, respectively, and required a revision surgery using a long nail or total hip replacement (THR). However, the average TAD did not significantly differ between groups which might be due to a relatively low cohort to reach a significant difference. Nonunion rate of 5% occurred solely in the GPFN group, with similar results of intraoperative open reduction between both groups. The EPFN group achieved better scores in both questionnaires (p = 0.027 and p = 0.046, respectively). Both the MHHS and SF-12 MCS values significantly differed between groups, with the EPFN group achieving better scores than the GPFN group in both questionnaires (p = 0.027 and p < 0.05, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
According to this study, the EPFN yields better results in comparison with the GPFN, with relatively less complications rate, for the treatment of unstable reverse oblique pertrochanteric fracture. In light of this results, we conclude that the EPFN might be as good as GPFN for the treatment of reverse oblique intertrochanteric fractures.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
Level III retrospective study. The local institutional review board of the Tel Aviv Medical Center approved this study and all the surgeries were done exclusively in this institution.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33417024
doi: 10.1007/s00402-020-03726-7
pii: 10.1007/s00402-020-03726-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
777-785Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE part of Springer Nature.
Références
Kokoroghiannis C, Aktselis I, Deligeorgis A, Fragkomichalos E, Papadimas D, Pappadas I (2012) Evolving concepts of stability and intramedullary fixation of intertrochanteric fractures—a review. Injury 43(6):686–693
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2011.05.031
Makki D, Matar HE, Jacob N, Lipscombe S, Gudena R (2015) Comparison of the reconstruction trochanteric antigrade nail (TAN) with the proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) in the management of reverse oblique intertrochanteric hip fractures. Injury 46(12):2389–2393
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.09.038
Palm H, Lysén C, Krasheninnikoff M, Holck K, Jacobsen S, Gebuhr P (2011) Intramedullary nailing appears to be superior in pertrochanteric hip fractures with a detached greater trochanter: 311 Consecutive patients followed for 1 year. Acta Orthop 82:166–170
doi: 10.3109/17453674.2011.566143
Elis J, Chechik O, Maman E, Steinberg EL (2012) Expandable proximal femoral nails versus 95 degrees dynamic condylar screw-plates for the treatment of reverse oblique intertrochanteric fractures. Injury 43(8):1313–1317
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2012.05.004
Gao F, Zhang CQ, Chai YM, Li XL (2015) Expandable Proximal Femoral Nails (EPFNs) in elderly patients. J Invest Surg 28(3):140–144
doi: 10.3109/08941939.2014.987885
Hesse B, Gachter A (2004) Complications following the treatment of trochanteric fractures with the gamma nail. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 124(10):692–698
doi: 10.1007/s00402-004-0744-8
Drexler M, Yaniv W, Tal FR et al (2016) Expandable proximal femoral nail versus gamma proximal femoral nail for the treatment of AO/OTA 31A1-3 fractures. Injury 47(2):419–423
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.10.013
Vaquero J, Munoz J, Prat S et al (2012) Proximal femoral nail antirotation versus Gamma3 nail for intramedullary nailing of unstable trochanteric fractures. A randomised comparative study. Injury 43(Suppl 2):S47-54
doi: 10.1016/S0020-1383(13)70179-7
Parker MJ, Handoll HH (2010) Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD000093
Folman Y, Ron N, Shabat S, Hopp M, Steinberg E (2006) Peritrochanteric fractures treated with the Fixion expandable proximal femoral nail: technical note and report of early results. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 126(3):211–214
doi: 10.1007/s00402-006-0110-0
Ben-Galim P, Rosenblatt Y, Parnes N, Dekel S, Steinberg EL (2007) Intramedullary fixation of tibial shaft fractures using an expandable nail. Clin Orthop Relat Res 455:234–240
doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000238827.57810.27
Klein MP, Rahn BA, Frigg R, Kessler S, Perren SM (1990) Reaming versus non-reaming in medullary nailing: interference with cortical circulation of the canine tibia. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 109(6):314–316
doi: 10.1007/BF00636168
Koval KJ, Clapper MF, Brumback RJ et al (1991) Complications of reamed intramedullary nailing of the tibia. J Orthop Trauma 5(2):184–189
doi: 10.1097/00005131-199105020-00011
Mawhinney IN, Maginn P, McCoy GF (1994) Tibial compartment syndromes after tibial nailing. J Orthop Trauma 8(3):212–214
doi: 10.1097/00005131-199406000-00005
McQueen MM, Christie J, Court-Brown CM (1990) Compartment pressures after intramedullary nailing of the tibia. J Bone Jt Surg Br 72(3):395–397
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.72B3.2341435
Schemitsch EH, Kowalski MJ, Swiontkowski MF, Senft D (1994) Cortical bone blood flow in reamed and unreamed locked intramedullary nailing: a fractured tibia model in sheep. J Orthop Trauma 8(5):373–382
doi: 10.1097/00005131-199410000-00002
Chou DT, Taylor AM, Boulton C, Moran CG (2012) Reverse oblique intertrochanteric femoral fractures treated with the intramedullary hip screw (IMHS). Injury 43(6):817–821
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2011.09.011
Sadowski C, Lubbeke A, Saudan M, Riand N, Stern R, Hoffmeyer P (2002) Treatment of reverse oblique and transverse intertrochanteric fractures with use of an intramedullary nail or a 95 degrees screw-plate: a prospective, randomized study. J Bone Jt Surg Am 84a(3):372–381
doi: 10.2106/00004623-200203000-00007
Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM, Keggi JM (1995) The value of the tip-apex distance in predicting failure of fixation of peritrochanteric fractures of the hip. J Bone Jt Surg Am 77(7):1058–1064
doi: 10.2106/00004623-199507000-00012
Baumgaertner MR, Solberg BD (1997) Awareness of tip-apex distance reduces failure of fixation of trochanteric fractures of the hip. J Bone Jt Surg Br 79(6):969–971
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.79B6.0790969
Steinberg EL, Blumberg N, Dekel S (2005) The fixion proximal femur nailing system: biomechanical properties of the nail and a cadaveric study. J Biomech 38(1):63–68
doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.03.014
Spiegel PG (1996) Fracture and dislocation compendium. Orthopaedic trauma association committee for coding and classification. J Orthop Trauma 10(Suppl 1 v–ix):1–154
Mariani EM, Rand JA (1987) Nonunion of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur following open reduction and internal fixation. Results of second attempts to gain union. Clin Orthop Relat Res 218:81–89
doi: 10.1097/00003086-198705000-00013