Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intertrochanteric fractures: comparison between two different locking nails

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare two intramedullary devices used in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures.

Method

During the period 2006–2007 46 TGN and 51 PFNA were used for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in our hospital. Clinical and radiological follow-up were available. Surgical time, blood loss and complications have been considered.

Results

The mean operative time for the TGN group was significantly higher than in the PFNA group (62 min and 45 min, respectively) with a p = 0.04. The mean blood loss was significantly higher in the TGN group (285 ml; SD 145) in relation to the PFNA group (226 ml; SD 136) with p = 0.03. Also, rate of complications was higher in the TGN group (p = 0.01). Clinical outcomes were good for both groups. Intra-operative and post-operative complications in the TGN group were associated with a longer operative time and a higher blood loss, probably due to the reaming needed in TGN that can increase blood loss and risk of comminution or fracture propagation. Moreover, all but one of the procedure-related complications were observed in very elderly patients.

Conclusions

Based on our results in the intertrochanteric fracture, use of PFNA should be recommended in cases of elderly and osteoporotic patients, while TGN should be used in more severely displaced fractures in patients with a slightly better bone mineral density.

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
Graph 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anglen JO, Weinstein JN (2008) Nail or plate fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: changing pattern of practice. A review of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Database. J Bone Joint Surg 90:700–707

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Leung KS, So WS, Shen WY (1992) Gamma nails and dynamic hip screw for peritrochanteric fractures a randomized prospective study in elderly patients. J Bone Joint Surg 74:345–351

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sadowski C, Lubbeke A, Saudan M (2002) Treatment of revers oblique and transverse intertrochanteric fractures with use of intramedullary nail or 95° screw plate. J Bone Joint Surg 84:372–381

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hardy DCR, Descamps P, Krallis P, Fabeck L, Smets P, Bertens CL, Delince FE (1998) Use of an intramedullary hip-screw compared with a compression hip-screw with a plate for intertrochanteric femoral fractures. A prospective, randomized study of one hundred patients. J Bone Joint Surg 80:618–630

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Parker MJ, Handoll HH (2005) Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 19(4):CD000093

    Google Scholar 

  6. Pelet S, Arlettaz Y, Chevalley F (2001) Ostheosyntesis of per-and subtrochanteric fractures by blade plate versus gamma nail. A randomized prospective study. Swiss Surg 7(3):126–133

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Moroni A, Faldini C, Pegreffi F (2005) Dynamic hip screw compared with external fixation for treatment of osteoporotic pertrochanteric fractures. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg 87:753–759

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Müller M, Seitz A, Besch L, Hilgert RE, Seekamp A (2008) Proximal femur fractures: results and complications after osteosynthesis with PFN and TGN. Unfallchirurg 111(2):71–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Megas P, Kaisidis A, Zouboulis P, Papas M, Panagopoulos A, Lambiris E (2005) Comparative study of the treatment of pertrochanteric fractures- trochanteric gamma nail vs proximal femoral nail. Z Orthop Grenzgeb 143(2):252–257

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. D’Arrigo C, Perugia D, Carcangiu A, Monaco E, Speranza A, Ferretti A (2010) Hip arthroplasty for failed treatment of proximal femoral fractures. Int Orthop 34(7):939–942

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Karunakar AM, McLaurin TM, Morgan JS, Egol KA. (2009) How to improve outcomes after perthrocanteric fracture. Instructional course lecture handout. 2009 AAOS Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, NV

  12. Pervez H, Parker MJ, Pryor GA, Lutchman L, Chirodian N (2002) Classification of trochanteric fracture of the proximal femur: a study of the reliability of current systems. Injury 33(8):713

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rosencher N, Kerkkamp HE, Macheras G (2003) Orthopedic surgery transfusion haemoglobin European Overview (OSTHEO) study: blood management in elective knee and hip arthroplasty in Europe. Transfusion 43:459–469

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 51(4):737–755

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Brunner A, Jöckel JA, Babst R (2008) The PFNA proximal femur nail in treatment of unstable proximal femur fractures—3 cases of postoperative perforation of the helical blade into the hip joint. J Othop Trauma 22:731–736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Herrera A, Domingo LJ, Calvo A, Martìnez A, Cuenca JA (2002) Comparative study of trochanteric fractures treated with the gamma nail or the proximal femoral nail. Int Orthop 26:365–369

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Schipper IB, Steyerberg EW, Castelein RM, Van Der Heijden FHWM, Den Hoed PT, Kerver AJH, Van Vugt AB (2004) Treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures—randomised comparison of the gamma nail and the proximal femoral nail. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86B:86–94

    Google Scholar 

  18. Perez JV, Warwick DJ, Case CP, Bannister GC (1995) Death after proximal femoral fracture-an autopsy study. Injury 26:237–240

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Docquier PL, Manche E, Autrique JC, Geulette B (2002) Complications associated with gamma nailing. A review of 439 cases. Acta Orthop Belg 68(3):251–257

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kouvidis GK, Sommers MB, Giannoudis PV, Katonis PG, Bottlang M (2009) Comparison of migration behavior between single and dual lag screw implants for intertrochanteric fracture fixation. J Orthop Surg Res 18:4–16

    Google Scholar 

  21. Al-Munajjed AA, Hammer J, Mayr E, Nerlich M, Lenich A (2008) Biomechanical characterisation of osteosyntheses for proximal femur fractures: helical blade versus screw. Stud Health Technol Inform 133:1–10

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schipper IB, Steyerberg EW, Castelein RM et al (2004) Treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures. Randomised comparison of the gamma nail and the proximal femoral. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86(1):86–94

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hwang JH, Oh JK, Han SH, Shon WY, Oh CV (2008) Mismatch between PFNa and medullary canal causing difficulty in nailing of the pertrochanteric fracture. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128(12):1443–1446

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nikolaou VS, Papathanasopoulos A, Giannoudis PV (2008) What’s new in the management of proximal femoral fractures? Injury 39(12):1309–1318

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflicts of interest in the authorship or publication of this contribution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedic and Traumatology Department, S. Andrea Hospital, University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Via di Grottarossa 1035-1039, Rome, 00189, Italy

    Carmelo D’Arrigo, Alessandro Carcangiu, Dario Perugia, Simone Scapellato, Raffaella Alonzo, Silvia Frontini & Andrea Ferretti

Authors
  1. Carmelo D’Arrigo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alessandro Carcangiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dario Perugia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Simone Scapellato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Raffaella Alonzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Silvia Frontini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Andrea Ferretti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessandro Carcangiu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

D’Arrigo, C., Carcangiu, A., Perugia, D. et al. Intertrochanteric fractures: comparison between two different locking nails. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 36, 2545–2551 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1684-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1684-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation