Medial migration of intramedullary hip fixation devices: a biomechanical analysis
- 563 Downloads
Intramedullary nails for fixation of extracapsular hip fractures have gained popularity recently. Although clinically successful, they are not devoid of complications. An infrequently reported complication is the medial migration of the femoral neck element (FNE) of the implant into the pelvis. The purpose of this study was to create a biomechanical model simulating this effect based on a clinical case radiographic analysis.
Eight clinical cases of medial migration were available for radiographic analysis. Medial migration was quantified and the fractures were classified. A biomechanical model was built comprising two fixtures containing the nail and FNE respectively. A pivot between the two fixtures, representing a deficient femoral calcar, simulated an unstable fracture type. Two pivot points were used for each nail. The constructs were tested using sinusoidal loading (40–800 N at 2 Hz) and medial migration was assessed. Five different nail designs (TFN, PFN, PFN-a, Gamma-3 and IMHS) were tested (overall 75 tests).
All the five implants demonstrated medial migration to a similar distance. The TFN required the highest number of cycles (3127 ± 2569) and the IMHS the lowest (58.8 ± 3.6) although this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.07). Changing the pivot point for the medial calcar did not alter the results significantly. All eight clinical cases demonstrated an unstable intertrochanteric fracture pattern (AO/OTA 32A2).
Discrete biomechanical conditions are required to reproduce medial migration of the FNE in cephalomedullary devices.
KeywordsIntertrochanteric hip fracture Medial migration Fixation failure Biomechanical model Nail
Conflict of interests: Drs Helfet, Gardner and Weil had not received any compensation or support for their participation in the study. Mr Pierson and Mikhail are employees of Synthes Research Facility, West Chester, PA, USA.
- 2.Boldin C, Seibert FJ, Fankhauser F, Peicha G, Grechenig W, Szyszkowitz R (2003) 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 74(1):53–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Health TFaDAcfDaR. Medical device reporting. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/mdr/index.html
- 8.Hohendorff B, Meyer P, Menezes D, Meier L, Elke R (2005) [Treatment results and complications after PFN osteosynthesis]. Unfallchirurg 108(11):938, 940, 941–936 passimGoogle Scholar
- 11.Mahomed N, Harrington I, Kellam J, Maistrelli G, Hearn T, Vroemen J (1994) Biomechanical analysis of the Gamma nail and sliding hip screw. Clin Orthop Relat Res (304):280–288Google Scholar
- 14.Parker MJ, Handoll HH (2005) Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (Online) (4):CD000093Google Scholar
- 15.Saudan M, Lubbeke A, Sadowski C, Riand N, Stern R, Hoffmeyer P (2002) 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 16(6):386–393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Schipper IB, Steyerberg EW, Castelein RM, van der Heijden FH, den Hoed PT, Kerver AJ, van Vugt AB (2004) Treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures. Randomised comparison of the gamma nail and the proximal femoral nail. J Bone Joint Surg 86(1):86–94Google Scholar