Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of proximal femoral nail type on clinical and radiological outcomes in the treatment of intertrochanteric femur fractures: a comparative study

  • Original Article • HIP - TRAUMA
  • Published:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the study was to compare three different proximal femoral nails in terms of functional and radiological outcomes in patients treated with closed reduction and internal fixation for intertrochanteric femur fractures (IFFs).

Methods

Between February 2010 and March 2016, 303 consecutive patients (132 male, 171 female) were included in the study. The groups were compared in terms of age, gender, body mass index, duration of surgery and duration of fluoroscopy, blood loss, type of fracture and quality of the reduction, complication rate, and functional and radiological results. Harris hip score (HHS), Barthel index, and full weight bearing time were used for functional evaluation. The quality of the reduction, collodiaphyseal angle (CDA), tip–apex distance (TAD), and fracture union were used for radiological results evaluation.

Results

There was no significant difference between groups in terms of fracture type, reduction quality, and complication rates. The mean operation time, duration of scopy, blood loss, and TAD was higher for InterTan, whereas the mean postoperative CDA was higher for PFNA-II. Operation time, postoperative CDA, and full weight bearing duration were higher for Profin than for InterTan. The mean HHS and Barthel Index were higher for PFNA-II, while the mean duration of operation and fluoroscopy, blood loss, TAD, and full weight bearing time were higher for Profin.

Conclusion

PFNA-II is a better option than Profin and InterTAN in the treatment of IFFs when the surgical parameters and functional and radiological results were evaluated as a whole.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bjørgul K, Reikerås O (2007) Incidence of hip fracture in southeastern Norway: a study of 1730 cervical and trochanteric fractures. Int Orthop 31:665–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wild M, Jungbluth P, Thelen S, Laffrée Q, Gehrmann S, Betsch M et al (2010) The dynamics of proximal femoral nails: a clinical comparison between PFNA and Targon PF. Orthopedics 33(8):398–404

    Google Scholar 

  3. Xu Z, Zhang M, Yin J, Ren L, Zeng Y (2015) Redisplacement after reduction with intramedullary nails in surgery of intertrochanteric fracture: cause analysis and preventive measures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135(6):751–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Parker MJ, Handoll HH (2010) Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 8(9):CD000093

    Google Scholar 

  5. Soucanye de Landevoisin E, Bertani A, Candoni P, Charpail C, Demortiere E (2012) Proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFN-ATM) fixation of extra-capsular proximal femoral fractures in the elderly: retrospective study in 102 patients. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98:288–295

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Uzer G, Elmadağ NM, Yıldız F, Bilsel K, Erden T, Toprak H (2015) Comparison of two types of proximal femoral hails in the treatment of intertrochanteric femur fractures. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 21(5):385–391

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kucukdeveci AA, Yavuzer G, Tennant A, Suldur N, Sonel B, Arasil T (2000) Adaptation of the modified Barthel Index for use in physical medicine and rehabilitation in Turkey. Scand J Rehabil Med 32:87–92

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Fogagnolo F, Kfuri M Jr, Paccola CA (2004) Intramedullary fixation of pertrochanteric hip fractures with the short AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 124:31–37

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 Joint Surg Am 77:1058–1064

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kouvidis G, Sakellariou VI, Mavrogenis AF, Stavrakakis J, Kampas D, Galanakis J et al (2012) Dual lag screw cephalomedullary nail versus the classic sliding hip screw for the stabilization of intertrochanteric fractures. A prospective randomized study. Strateg Trauma Limb Reconstr 7:155–162

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kumbaraci M, Karapinar L, Turgut A (2017) Comparison of second and third-generation nails in the treatment of intertrochanteric fracture: screws versus helical blades. Eurasian J Med 49(1):7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Stern R, Lübbeke A, Suva D, Miozzari H, Hoffmeyer P (2011) Prospective randomised study comparing screw versus helical blade in the treatment of low-energy trochanteric fractures. Int Orthop 35:1855–1861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. D’Arrigo C, Carcangiu A, Perugia D, Scapellato S, Alonzo R, Frontini S et al (2012) Intertrochanteric fractures: comparison between two different locking nails. Int Orthop 36:2545–2551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Yu W, Zhang X, Zhu X, Hu J, Liu Y (2016) A retrospective analysis of the InterTan nail and proximal femoral nail anti-rotation-Asia in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures in the elderly. J Orthop Surg Res 11(1):10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lenich A, Vester H, Nerlich M, Mayr E, Stöckle U, Füchtmeier B (2010) Clinical comparison of the second and third generation of intramedullary devices for trochanteric fractures of the hip—blade vs screw. Injury 41(12):1292–1296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Vaquero J, Munoz J, Prat S, Ramirez C, Aguado HJ, Moreno E et al (2012) Proximal femoral nail antirotation versus gamma3 nail for intramedullary nailing of unstable trochanteric fractures. A randomised comparative study. Injury 43(2):47–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhang S, Zhang K, Jia Y, Yu B, Feng W (2013) InterTan nail versus proximal femoral nail antirotation-Asia in the treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures. Orthopedics 36(3):288–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ertürer RE, Sönmez MM, Sarı S, Seckin MF, Kara A, Oztürk I (2012) Intramedullary osteosynthesis of instable intertrochanteric femur fractures with Profin® nail in elderly patients. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 46(2):107–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Huang Y, Zhang C, Luo Y (2013) A comparative biomechanical study of proximal femoral nail (InterTAN) and proximal femoral nail antirotation for intertrochanteric fractures. Int Orthop 37:2465–2473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nüchtern JV, Ruecker AH, Sellenschloch K, Rupprecht M, Püschel K, Rueger JM et al (2014) Malpositioning of the lag screws by 1- or 2-screw nailing systems for pertrochanteric femoral fractures: mechanical comparison of gamma 3 and intertan. J Orthop Trauma 28:276–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gardenbroek TJ, Segers MJ, Simmermacher RK, Hammacher ER (2011) The proximal femur nail antirotation: an identifiable improvement in the treatment of unstable pertrochanteric fractures? J Trauma 71(1):169–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Yaozeng X, Dechun G, Huilin Y, Guanming Z, Xianbin W (2010) Comparative study of trochanteric fracture treated with proximal femoral nail anti-rotation and the third generation of gamma nail. Injury 41:1234–1238

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors thank to Malik ÇELİK (Orthopedic Surgeon, M.D.) for his help in drawing medical illustrations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Bakırköy Dr. Sadi Konuk Education and Research Hospital, Tevfik Sağlam St. Number 11, Bakırköy, 34147, Istanbul, Turkey

    Altuğ Duramaz & Mehmet Hakan İlter

Authors
  1. Altuğ Duramaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mehmet Hakan İlter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Altuğ Duramaz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Duramaz, A., İlter, M.H. The impact of proximal femoral nail type on clinical and radiological outcomes in the treatment of intertrochanteric femur fractures: a comparative study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 29, 1441–1449 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-019-02454-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-019-02454-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation