Skip to main content
Log in

A randomised comparison of AMBI, TGN and PFN for treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures

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

Abstract

Introduction: In this study, we initiated a prospective, randomised, clinical trial comparing the AMBI, TGN and PFN operations used for treatment of unstable fractures, for differences in intra-operative use, consolidation, complications and functional outcome. Materials and methods: We have compared the pre-, intra- and post-operating variables of AMBI, TGN and PFN operations that were used for treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures, of 120 patients all above 60 years old diagnosed with extracapsular hip fractures classified as AO Type 31-A2 or Type 31-A3. Results: According to our results the three methods are comparable in the treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures of patients above 60 years old. Conclusion: The AMBI remains the gold standard for the fractures of trochanteric region. TGN has an easier and faster procedure, facilitates early weight bearing and had minor late complications. An improper use of the PFN system was the reason for the most complications and the longer operation time of the device. PFN is also an accepted minimally invasive implant for unstable proximal femoral fractures but future modification of the implant to avoid Z-effect phenomenon, careful surgical technique and selection of the patients should reduce its high complication rate.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Al-yassari G, Langstaff RJ, Jones JWM, Al-Lami M (2002) The AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail (PFN) for the treatment of unstable trochanteric femoral fracture. Injury 33:395

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Banan H, Al-Sabti A, Jimulia T, Hart AJ (2002) The treatment of unstable, extracapsular hip fractures with the AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail (PFN)—our first 60 cases. Injury 33:401

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM (1998) Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation for the treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures. Clin Orthop 348:87–94

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bellabarba C, Herscovici D Jr, Ricci WM (2000) Percutaneous treatment of peritrochanteric fractures using the Gamma nail. Clin Orthop 375:30–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bess RJ, Jolly SA (1997) Comparison of compression hip screw and gamma nail for treatment of peritrochanteric fractures. J South Orthop Assoc 6:173–179

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Boldin C, Seibert F, Fankhauser F, Peicha G, Grechening W, Szyszkowitz R (2003) The proximal femoral nail (PFN)-a minimal invasive treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures. A prospective study of 55 patients wit a follow-up of 15 months. Acta Orthop Scand 74:53–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bridle SH, Patel AD, Bircher M, Calvert PT (1991) Fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73B:330

    Google Scholar 

  8. Butt MS, Krikler SJ, Nafie S, Ali MS (1995) Comparison of dynamic hip screw and gamma nail: a prospective randomized controlled trail. Injury 26:615

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Domingo L, Cecilia D, Herrera A, Resines C (2001) Trochanteric fractures treated with a proximal femoral nail. Int Orthop 25:298–301

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Guyer P, Landolt M, Eberle C et al (1991) Der Gamma-nagel als belastungsstabile alternative zur DHS bei der instabilen proximalen femurfraktur des alten menschen. Helv Chir Acta 58:697–703

    Google Scholar 

  13. Haberneck H, Wallner T, Aschauer E, Schmid L (2000) Comparison of ender nails, dynamic hip screws, and Gamma nails in the treatment of peritrochanteric femoral fractures. Orthopedics 23:121–127

    Google Scholar 

  14. Haynes RC, Poll RG, Miles AW, Weston RB (1997) Failure of femoral head fixation: a cadaveric analysis of lag screw cut out with the gamma locking nail and AO DHS. Injury 28:337

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Herrera A, Domingo LJ, Calvo A, Martínez A, Cuenca J (2002) A 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 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Muller ME, Nazarian S, Koch P, Schatzker J (eds) (1990) The comprehensive classification of fractures of long bones. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, p 120

  18. O’Brien PJ, Meek RN, Blachut PA et al (1995) Fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: gamma nail versus dynamic hip screw. A randomized, prospective study. Can J Surg 38:516–520

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Parker MJ, Pryor GA (1996) Gamma versus DHS nailing for extracapsular femoral fractures: meta-analysis of ten randomised trials. Int Orthop 20:163–168

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Radford PJ, Needoff M, Webb JK (1993) A prospective randomised comparison of the dynamic hip screw and the gamma locking nail. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75:789–793

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Salvati A, Wilson D (1973) Long-term results of femoral-head replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 55A:516–524

    Google Scholar 

  22. Saudan M, Lübbeke 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 16:386–393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schipper IB, Steyerberg EW, Castelein RM, van der Heijden FH, den Hoed PT, Kerver AJ, van Vugt AB (2004) Treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures. Randomized comparison of the gamma nail and the proximal femoral nail. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:86–94

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Simmermacher RKJ, Bosch AM, Van de Werken Chr (1999) The AO/ASIF-poximal femoral nail (PFN): a new device for the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures. Injury 30:327

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Velasco RV, Comfort TH (1978) Analysis of treatment problems in subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Trauma 18:513

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Werner-Tutschku W, Lajtai G, Schmiedhuber G, Lang T, Pirkl C, Orthner E (2002) Intra-und perioperative Komplikationen bei der Stabilisierung von per-und subtrochantären Femurfracturen mittels PFN. Unfallchirurg 105:881–885

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Williams WW, Parker BC (1992) Complications associated with the use of the gamma nail. Injury 23:291–292

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Wolfrang GL, Bryant MH, Oneil JP (1982) Treatment of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur using sliding screw plate fixation. Clin Orthop 163:148

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. M. Koutsojannis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Papasimos, S., Koutsojannis, C.M., Panagopoulos, A. et al. A randomised comparison of AMBI, TGN and PFN for treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 125, 462–468 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-005-0021-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-005-0021-5

Keywords

Navigation