Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Nailing precision: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing piriformis and trochanteric entry points for femoral antegrade nailing

  • Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Entry point selection, a crucial aspect of femoral antegrade nailing, can impact nail fit and consequently fracture reduction. In adults, the standard entry portals used are the piriformis fossa and the tip of the greater trochanter. Previous systematic reviews comparing the two techniques have not been limited to Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and have not consistently included the same available RCTs.

Materials and methods

A systematic search of comparative studies regarding entry portal selection in femoral antegrade nailing was conducted on seven databases. Only Prospective RCTs comparing trochanteric and piriformis entry in the management of trochanteric or diaphyseal femur fractures were eligible for inclusion.

Results

Ultimately, only 6 RCTs were found eligible for inclusion. Five of the six included studies reported on operative time. The resulting mean difference (MD) illustrated a significant decrease in operative time by approximately 21.26 min (95% CI  – 28.60 to  – 13.92, p < 0.001) using trochanteric entry. Fluoroscopy exposure was reported on by four studies, however, only two studies were included in the analysis due to different reporting methods. Trochanteric entry used significantly less fluoroscopy than piriformis entry (MD -50.33 s, 95% CI  – 84.441 to  – 16.22, p = 0. 004). No significant difference in malalignment rates, delayed union rates, nonunion rates, pain scores, or complication rates was found.

Conclusion

The significant differences found in operating time and fluoroscopy time align with those in other studies. While we were not able to pool the data on functional outcome scores, none of the included studies found a significant difference in scores by their last follow-up. Both approaches demonstrate comparable functional outcomes and safety profiles, indicating the choice of entry point should be at the discretion of the surgeon based on technique familiarity and fracture characteristics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.

References

  1. Buruian A, Silva Gomes F, Roseiro T, Vale C, Carvalho A, Seiça E et al (2020) Distal interlocking for short trochanteric nails: static, dynamic or no locking? Review of the literature and decision algorithm. EFORT Open Rev 5(7):421–429

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Lucas PD, Seral B, Beano Á, Almodóvar JA, Domínguez I, Rodríguez J, Moro E (2005) Fractures of the proximal femur. The gamma Nail versus plate. Osteosynth Trauma Care 13(1):18–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Parker MJ, Handoll HH (2010) Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database System Rev

  4. Hussain N, Hussain FN, Sermer C, Kamdar H, Schemitsch EH, Sternheim A, Kuzyk P (2017) Antegrade versus retrograde nailing techniques and trochanteric versus piriformis intramedullary nailing entry points for femoral shaft fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Surg 60(1):19–29

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Sheth U, Gohal C, Chahal J, Nauth A, Dwyer T (2016) Comparing entry points for antegrade nailing of femoral shaft fractures. Orthopedics 39(1):e43–e50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kumar P, Neradi D, Kansal R, Aggarwal S, Kumar V, Dhillon MS (2019) Greater trochanteric versus piriformis fossa entry nails for femur shaft fractures: resolving the controversy. Injury 50(10):1715–1724

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Haidukewych GJ (2009) Intertrochanteric fractures: ten tips to improve results. JBJS 91(3):712–719

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gausepohl T, Pennig D, Koebke J, Harnoss S (2002) Antegrade femoral nailing: an anatomical determination of the correct entry point. Injury 33(8):701–705

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Charopoulos I, Giannoudis PV (2009) Ideal entry point in antegrade femoral nailing: controversies and innovations. Injury 40(8):791–794

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Starr AJ, Hay MT, Reinert CM, Borer DS, Christensen KC (2006) Cephalomedullary nails in the treatment of high-energy proximal femur fractures in young patients: a prospective, randomized comparison of trochanteric versus piriformis fossa entry portal. J Orthop Trauma 20(4):240–246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ostrum RF, Marcantonio A, Marburger R (2005) A critical analysis of the eccentric starting point for trochanteric intramedullary femoral nailing. J Orthop Trauma 19(10):681–686

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Thomas J, McDonald S, Noel-Storr A, Shemilt I, Elliott J, Mavergames C, Marshall IJ (2021) Machine learning reduced workload with minimal risk of missing studies: development and evaluation of a randomized controlled trial classifier for Cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 133:140–151

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I et al (2019) RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 366:l4898

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Higgins JP, Green S (2008) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions

  15. Triola MF (2010) Elementary Statistics. Pearson Education, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ansari Moein C, Duis H, Oey P, Kort G, Meulen W, Werken C (2011) Intramedullary femoral nailing through the trochanteric fossa versus greater trochanter tip: a randomized controlled study with in-depth functional outcome results. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 37(6):615–622

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kumar A, Mittal P (2017) Comparative study of outcome of femur nail with entry from piriformisfossa vs greater trochanter. Global J Res Anal 6(11):54–56

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Meena KP, Yadav MK, Devatheya D (2016) A prospective randomized comparative study between trochanteric versus piriformis entry portal for intramedullary interlock nailing in the treatment of femoral shaft fracture. Int J Res Orthop 2(1):18–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Stannard JP, Bankston L, Futch LA, McGwin G, Volgas DA (2011) Functional outcome following intramedullary nailing of the femur: a prospective randomized comparison of piriformis fossa and greater trochanteric entry portals. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(15):1385–1391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bharti S, Goyal N, Chavan R (2019) Trochanteric entry VS piriformis entry in case of antegrade nailing of femoral shaft fracture treatment: a prospective randomised comparative study. Int J Orthop 5(4):1016–1022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dalton JE, Bolen SD, Mascha EJ (2016) Publication bias: the elephant in the review. Anesth Analg 123(4):812–813

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Ricci WM, Schwappach J, Tucker M, Coupe K, Brandt A, Sanders R, Leighton R (2008) Trochanteric versus piriformis entry portal for the treatment of femoral shaft fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 22:S9–S13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chou LB, Johnson B, Shapiro LM, Pun S, Cannada LK, Chen AF et al (2022) Increased prevalence of breast and all-cause cancer in female orthopaedic surgeons. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-22-00031

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Mastrangelo G, Fedeli U, Fadda E, Giovanazzi A, Scoizzato L, Saia B (2005) Increased cancer risk among surgeons in an orthopaedic hospital. Occup Med (Lond) 55(6):498–500

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Smith T, Evans J, Moriel K, Tihista M, Bacak C, Dunn J et al (2022) Cost of OR time is $46.04 per minute. J Orthop Bus 2:10–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Orland MD, Lee RY, Naami EE, Patetta MJ, Hussain AK, Gonzalez MH (2020) Surgical duration implicated in major postoperative complications in total hip and total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective cohort study. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 4(11):e20.00043

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Wei C, Gu A, Almeida ND, Bestourous D, Quan T, Fassihi SC et al (2021) Operation time effect on rates of perioperative complications after operative treatment of distal radius fractures. J Orthop 24:82–85

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Cheng H, Clymer JW, Po-Han Chen B, Sadeghirad B, Ferko NC, Cameron CG, Hinoul P (2018) Prolonged operative duration is associated with complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Surg Res 229:134–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mayo-Wilson E, Li T, Fusco N, Dickersin K (2018) Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (with examples from the MUDS study). Res Synth Methods 9(1):2–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Slomski A (2020) Despite law, most clinical trial results still not posted. JAMA. 323(12):1124

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. DeVito NJ, Bacon S, Goldacre B (2020) Compliance with legal requirement to report clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: a cohort study. The Lancet 395(10221):361–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No Funding or support was received for any aspect of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nova Southeastern University Dr. Kiran C. Patel College of Allopathic Medicine (NSU MD), Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA

    Daniel Acevedo, Andy Suarez, Taylor Checkley, Iman Fakhoury & Mariafe Reyes

  2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Miami Hospital, Miami, FL, USA

    David Constantinescu & Giselle M Hernandez

Authors
  1. Daniel Acevedo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andy Suarez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Taylor Checkley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Iman Fakhoury
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mariafe Reyes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David Constantinescu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Giselle M Hernandez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, DA.; Methodology, DA, DC, GMH; Investigation, DA, AS, TC,IF, MR; Writing – Original Draft, DA, AS, TC, IF, MR.; Writing – Review & Editing, DA, DC, GMH; Resources, DA; Supervision, DA, AS, DC and GMH.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Acevedo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethical approval statement

This was an IRB-exempt study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Acevedo, D., Suarez, A., Checkley, T. et al. Nailing precision: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing piriformis and trochanteric entry points for femoral antegrade nailing. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-024-05359-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-024-05359-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation