Clinical and functional outcomes of internal fixation with intertrochanteric antegrade nail in older patients with proximal extracapsular femoral fractures

  • M. Galli
  • V. Ciriello
  • L. Bocchino
  • N. M. Gangemi
  • M. Peruzzi
  • E. Marzetti
Original Article



The intertrochanteric Trigen Intertan® nail (Smith & Nephew, Memphis, TN) is a popular fixation device for proximal extracapsular femoral fractures (PEFFs). We evaluated clinical and functional outcomes in patients with PEFFs treated with Trigen Intertan® nail.


In a single-site, prospective observational study, clinical and functional parameters were recorded for all patients admitted to the Emergency Department with PEFFs from June 2008 through June 2011. Patients with severe cognitive impairment, severe disability, neoplastic pathological fractures, or suffering from terminal illnesses were not eligible for the study. Fractures were classified according to the AO/OTA classification system. Preoperative physical fitness was assessed via the American Association of Anaesthetists (ASA) score. The Barthel index was used to quantify the level of physical function before fracture and at follow-up.


One-hundred thirty-five patients with PEFFs were eligible for inclusion during the 3-year survey (mean age 83.2 ± 9.5 years; 82 % females). Fracture type distribution was as follows: A1.1 = 18 %, A1.2 = 7 %, A1.3 = 5 %, A2.1 = 44 %, A2.2 = 21 %, A2.3 = 5 %. All patients were treated with Trigen Intertan® nail. Two patients experienced a fracture of the femoral shaft during the insertion of a long nail for an A2.3 fracture. Weight-bearing was allowed between the third and tenth postoperative day depending on pain tolerance and general conditions. No loss of reduction, collapse of the femoral neck, nonunion or fixation failure were observed. Two patients died within 10 days postoperatively, and nine within 6 months after surgery. Functional status 1 month after surgery was lower than pre-fractural levels, and improved over follow-up. At 6 months, functional status was comparable to the pre-fractural level.


Trigen Intertan® produces highly satisfactory clinical and functional results in older patients with PEFFs. Complete functional recovery is obtained on average 6 months after surgery.


Elderly Hip fracture Pertrochanteric fracture Proximal femoral nail Osteosynthesis Surgical treatment 



E.M. is partly supported by the Centro Studi Achille e Linda Lorenzon at the Center for Geriatric Medicine.

Conflict of interest

M. Galli, V. Ciriello, L. Bocchino, N. M. Gangemi, M. Peruzzi and E. Marzetti declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

The study protocol was approved by the Catholic University’s Ethics Committee. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Senohradski K, Markovic-Denic L, Lesic A, Bumbasirevic V, Bumbasirevic M. Trends in the incidence of hip fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24:1759–63. doi: 10.1007/s00198-012-2244-y.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ngobeni RS. Mortality in elderly patients with intertrochanteric fractures: three years’ experience. SA Orthop J. 2010;9:55–60.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Braithwaite RS, Col NF, Wong JB. Estimating hip fracture morbidity, mortality and costs. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51:364–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Magaziner J, Fredman L, Hawkes W, Hebel JR, Zimmerman S, Orwig DL, Wehren L. Changes in functional status attributable to hip fracture: a comparison of hip fracture patients to community-dwelling aged. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157:1023–31. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwg081.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hallberg I, Bachrach-Lindström M, Hammerby S, Toss G, Ek AC. Health-related quality of life after vertebral or hip fracture: a seven-year follow-up study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009;10:135. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-10-135.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zlowodzki M, Tornetta P 3rd, Haidukewych G, Hanson BP, Petrisor B, Swiontkowski MF, Schemitsch EH, Giannoudis PV, Bhandari M. Femoral neck fractures: evidence versus beliefs about predictors of outcome. Orthopedics. 2009;32(4). pii: = 38062.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moja L, Piatti A, Pecoraro V, Ricci C, Virgili G, Salanti G, Germagnoli L, Liberati A, Banfi G. Timing matters in hip fracture surgery: patients operated within 48 hours have better outcomes. A meta-analysis and meta-regression of over 190,000 patients. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e46175. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046175.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rupprecht M, Grossterlinden L, Ruecker AH, de Oliveira AN, Sellenschloh K, Nüchtern J, Püschel K, Morlock M, Rueger JM, Lehmann W. A comparative biomechanical analysis of fixation devices for unstable femoral neck fractures: the Intertan versus cannulated screws or a dynamic hip screw. J Trauma. 2011;71:625–34. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31820e86e6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rupprecht M, Grossterlinden L, Sellenschloh K, Hoffmann M, Püschel K, Morlock M, Rueger JM, Lehmann W. Internal fixation of femoral neck fractures with posterior comminution: a biomechanical comparison of DHS® and Intertan nail®. Int Orthop. 2011;35:1695–701. doi: 10.1007/s00264-010-1199-x.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Muller M, Nazarian S, Koch P, Schatzker J. The comprehensive classification of fractures of long bones. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1990; doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-61261-9.
  11. 11.
    Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kraus M, Krischak G, Wiedmann K, Riepl C, Gebhard F, Jöckel JA, Scola A. Clinical evaluation of PFNA® and relationship between the tip-apex distance and mechanical failure. Unfallchirurg. 2011;114:470–8. doi: 10.1007/s00113-011-1975-0.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yaozeng X, Dechun G, Huilin Y, Guangming Z, Xianbin W. Comparative study of trochanteric fracture treated with the proximal femoral nail anti-rotation and the third generation of gamma nail. Injury. 2010;41:1234–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Singh M, Nagrath AR, Maini PS. Changes in trabecular pattern of the upper end of the femur as an index of osteoporosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970;52:457–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jongbloed L, Stacey S, Brighton C. Stroke rehabilitation: sensorimotor integrative treatment versus functional treatment. Am J Occup Ther. 1989;43:391–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Verhofstad MH, van der Werken C. DHS osteosynthesis for stable pertrochanteric femur fractures with a two-hole side plate. Injury. 2004;35:999–1002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ahrengart L, Törnkvist H, Fornander P, Thorngren KG, Pasanen L, Wahlström P, Honkonen S, Lindgren U. A randomized study of the compression hip screw and Gamma nail in 426 fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;401:209–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schipper IB, Marti RK, van der Werken C. Unstable trochanteric femoral fractures: extramedullary or intramedullary fixation. Review of literature. Injury. 2004;35:142–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wiss DA, Fleming CH, Matta JM, Clark D. Comminuted and rotationally unstable fractures of the femur treated with an interlocking nail. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986;212:35–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Takigami I, Matsumoto K, Ohara A, Yamanaka K, Naganawa T, Ohashi M, Date K, Shimizu K. Treatment of trochanteric fractures with the PFNA (proximal femoral nail antirotation) nail system—report of early results. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2008;66:276–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pires RE, Santana EO Jr, Santos LE, Giordano V, Balbachevsky D, Dos Reis FB. Failure of fixation of trochanteric femur fractures: clinical recommendations for avoiding Z-effect and reverse Z-effect type complications. Patient Saf Surg. 2011;5:17. doi: 10.1186/1754-9493-5-17.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kouvidis GK, Sommers MB, Giannoudis PV, Katonis PG, Bottlang M. Comparison of migration behavior between single and dual lag screw implants for intertrochanteric fracture fixation. J Orthop Surg Res. 2009;4:16. doi: 10.1186/1749-799X-4-16.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schipper IB, Bresina S, Wahl D, Linke B, Van Vugt AB, Schneider E. Biomechanical evaluation of the proximal femoral nail. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;405:277–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sahin 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;44:127–34. doi: 10.3944/AOTT.2010.2237.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Galli
    • 1
  • V. Ciriello
    • 1
  • L. Bocchino
    • 1
  • N. M. Gangemi
    • 1
  • M. Peruzzi
    • 1
  • E. Marzetti
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Geriatrics, Neurosciences and Orthopedics, Institute of OrthopedicsCatholic University of the Sacred Heart School of Medicine, Teaching Hospital “Agostino Gemelli”RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations