Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pitfalls and complications in the use of the proximal femoral nail

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and aims

Osteosynthesis with the proximal femoral nail (PFN) features the advantages of high rotational stability of the head–neck fragment, an unreamed implantation technique and the possibility of static or dynamic distal locking. However, the use of the nail is technically ambitious and is accompanied by some risks of error, which can lead to failure of the osteosynthesis. In this paper we present the results of a critical analysis of mistakes that were made in our hospital during the introduction period of this implant.

Patients and methods

We carried out a prospective analysis of the data of 121 consecutive patients who were suffering from trochanteric or subtrochanteric fracture between December 1997 and December 2000 and who had been treated with a PFN.

Results

We identified intraoperative technical difficulties in 23 patients (19.1%). Seven cases showed postoperative local complications that required operative revision on six patients (4.9%). The main reasons for the failure of the operations involved were poor reduction and wrong choice of screws. Following our critical analysis, we were able to avoid those problems.

Conclusions

When 31A fractures are to be stabilised with a PFN, the precise technical performance of the implantation represents the basic surgical requirement. Already present minor deviations will subsequently cause loosening of the implants and failure of the operation.

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. 3a–d
Fig. 4a–d

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stürmer KM, Dresing K (1995) Pertrochanteric fractures. Zentralbl Chir 120:862

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Nuber S, Schonweiss T, Ruter A (2003) Stabilisation of unstable trochanteric femoral fractures. Dynamic hip screw (DHS) with trochanteric stabilisation plate vs. proximal femur nail (PFN). Unfallchirurg 106:39

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ahrengart L, Tornkvist H, Fornander P, Thorngren KG, Pasanen L, Wahlstrom P, Honkonen S, Lindgren U (2002) A randomized study of the compression hip screw and Gamma nail in 426 fractures. Clin Orthop 401:209–222

    Google Scholar 

  4. Parker MJ, Handoll HH (2002) Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev: CD000093

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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 16:386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Madsen JE, Naess L, Aune AK, Alho A, Ekeland A, Stromsoe K (1998) Dynamic hip screw with trochanteric stabilizing plate in the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures: a comparative study with the Gamma nail and compression hip screw. J Orthop Trauma 12:241

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pervez H, Parker MJ (2001) Results of the long Gamma nail for complex proximal femoral fractures. Injury 32:704

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Schwab E, Höntzsch D, Weise K (1998) Treatment of unstable inter- and subtrochanteric fractures with the proximal femoral nail (PFN). Akt Traumatol 28:56

    Google Scholar 

  9. Simmermacher RK, Bosch AM, Van der WC (1999) The AO/ASIF-proximal femoral nail (PFN): a new device for the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures. Injury 30:327

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Windolf J, Hollander D, Krämer S, Hakimi M (2001) Proximal femoral nail (PFN)—therapy of choice as full weight-bearing treatment to stabilize 31-A-fractures in old patients ? Akt Traumatol 31:57

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dousa P, Bartonicek J, Jehlicka D, Skala-Rosenbaum J (2002) Osteosynthesis of trochanteric fractures using proximal femoral nails. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Czech 69:22

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Herrera A, Domingo LJ, Calvo A, Martinez A, Cuenca J (2002) A comparative study of trochanteric fractures treated with the Gamma nail or the proximal femoral nail. Int Orthop 26:365

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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 74:53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Aboulafia AJ, Price MM, Kennon RE, Hutton WC (1999) A comparison of mechanical strength of the femoral neck following locked intramedullary nailing using oblique versus transverse proximal screws. J Orthop Trauma 13:160

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rappold G, Hertz H, Spitaler R (2001) Implant breakage of the proximal femoral nail (PFN). Eur J Trauma 27:333

    Google Scholar 

  19. Werner-Tutschku W, Lajtai G, Schmiedhuber G, Lang T, Pirkl C, Orthner E (2002) Intra- and perioperative complications in the stabilization of per- and subtrochanteric femoral fractures by means of PFN. Unfallchirurg 105:881

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Trauma, Hand, and Reconstructive Surgery, Hamburg University School of Medicine, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany

    Joachim Windolf & Wolfgang Linhart

  2. Department of Trauma Surgery, University Hospital of Aachen, Aachen, Germany

    Dirk A. Hollander

  3. Department of Trauma, Hand, and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

    Mohssen Hakimi

Authors
  1. Joachim Windolf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dirk A. Hollander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohssen Hakimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wolfgang Linhart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joachim Windolf.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Windolf, J., Hollander, D.A., Hakimi, M. et al. Pitfalls and complications in the use of the proximal femoral nail. Langenbecks Arch Surg 390, 59–65 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-004-0466-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-004-0466-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation