Literature DB >> 22311725

Is helical blade nailing superior to locked minimally invasive plating in unstable pertrochanteric fractures?

Matthias Knobe1, Wolf Drescher, Nicole Heussen, Richard Martin Sellei, Hans-Christoph Pape.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Technical advancements have produced many challenges to intramedullary implants for unstable pertrochanteric fractures. Helical blade fixation of the femoral head has the theoretical advantages of higher rotational stability and cutout resistance and should have a lower rate of reoperation than a locked plating technique. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked whether (1) helical blade nailing reduces the rate of reoperation within 24 months compared with locked plating and (2) any of various preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative factors predicted failure in these two groups.
METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 108 patients with unstable pertrochanteric fractures in a surgeon-allocated study between November 2005 and November 2008: 54 with percutaneous compression plates (PCCP) and 54 with proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA). We evaluated patients regarding reoperation, mortality, and function. Seventy-four patients had a minimum followup of 24 months (mean, 26 months; range, 24-30 months).
RESULTS: We found no differences in the number of reoperations attributable to mechanical problems in the two groups: PCCP = six and PFNA = five. Despite a greater incidence of postoperative lateral wall fractures with helical blade nailing, only postoperative varisation of the neck-shaft angle and tip-apex distance (33 mm versus 28 mm) predicted reoperation. Mortality and function were similar in the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest unstable pertrochanteric fractures may be fixed either with locked extramedullary small-diameter screw systems to avoid lateral wall fractures or with the new intramedullary systems to avoid potential mechanical complications of a broken lateral wall. Tip-apex distance and preservation of the preoperative femoral neck-shaft angle are the key technical factors for prevention of reoperation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22311725      PMCID: PMC3392400          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-012-2268-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  37 in total

Review 1.  Unstable trochanteric femoral fractures: extramedullary or intramedullary fixation. Review of literature.

Authors:  I B Schipper; R K Marti; Chr van der Werken
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.586

2.  Dynamic hip screws that fail.

Authors:  A P Thomas
Journal:  Injury       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 2.586

3.  Evaluation of the Singh index and femoral calcar width as epidemiological methods for measuring bone mass in the femoral neck.

Authors:  C Cooper; D J Barker; A J Hall
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  1986-03       Impact factor: 2.350

4.  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.

Authors:  W H Harris
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1969-06       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  The randomized clinical trial in orthopaedics: obligation or option?

Authors:  S Rudicel; J Esdaile
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1985-10       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Prediction of fixation failure after sliding hip screw fixation.

Authors:  Humayon Pervez; Martyn J Parker; Sarah Vowler
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.586

7.  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.

Authors:  D C Hardy; P Y Descamps; P Krallis; L Fabeck; P Smets; C L Bertens; P E Delince
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  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.

Authors:  J E Madsen; L Naess; A K Aune; A Alho; A Ekeland; K Strømsøe
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 2.512

9.  The value of the tip-apex distance in predicting failure of fixation of peritrochanteric fractures of the hip.

Authors:  M R Baumgaertner; S L Curtin; D M Lindskog; J M Keggi
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey.

Authors:  Daniel Dindo; Nicolas Demartines; Pierre-Alain Clavien
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 12.969

View more
  14 in total

Review 1.  [Anesthesiological management of elderly trauma patients].

Authors:  M Coburn; A B Röhl; M Knobe; A Stevanovic; C Stoppe; R Rossaint
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 1.041

2.  Management of unstable pertrochanteric fractures with proximal femoral locking compression plates and affect of neck-shaft angle on functional outcomes.

Authors:  Emrah Kovalak; Cenk Ermutlu; Tolga Atay; Özgür Başal
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2017-07-15

3.  A comparison of two fixation methods for femoral trochanteric fractures: a new generation intramedullary system vs sliding hip screw.

Authors:  Christian Carulli; Federico Piacentini; Tommaso Paoli; Roberto Civinini; Massimo Innocenti
Journal:  Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab       Date:  2017-05-30

Review 4.  [Hip fractures in the elderly : Osteosynthesis versus joint replacement].

Authors:  M Knobe; C H Siebert
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 1.087

5.  [The rotationally stable screw-anchor with trochanteric stabilizing plate (RoSA/TSP) : First results in unstable trochanteric femur fractures].

Authors:  K-J Maier; B Bücking; K Horst; H Andruszkow; F Hildebrand; M Knobe
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 1.000

6.  A comparative study of Proximal Femoral Nail (PFN) versus Dynamic Condylar Screw (DCS) in management of unstable trochanteric fractures.

Authors:  Md Faraz Jamil; Julfiqar Mohd; Mazhar Abbas; Yasir Salam Siddiqui; Mohammad Jesan Khan
Journal:  Int J Burns Trauma       Date:  2022-06-15

7.  Unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures: is there a consensus on definition and treatment in Germany?

Authors:  Matthias Knobe; Gertraud Gradl; Andreas Ladenburger; Ivan S Tarkin; Hans-Christoph Pape
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 8.  Cement augmentation for trochanteric fracture in elderly: A systematic review.

Authors:  Leonardo Stramazzo; Salvatore Ratano; Francesco Monachino; Davide Pavan; Giuseppe Rovere; Lawrence Camarda
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2020-10-20

9.  Application of 3D printing rapid prototyping-assisted percutaneous fixation in the treatment of intertrochanteric fracture.

Authors:  Sheng-Nai Zheng; Qing-Qiang Yao; Feng-Yong Mao; Peng-Fei Zheng; Shu-Chang Tian; Jia-Yi Li; Yi-Fan Yu; Shuai Liu; Jin Zhou; Jun Hu; Yan Xu; Kai Tang; Yue Lou; Li-Ming Wang
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2017-08-22       Impact factor: 2.447

10.  Comparing the Intramedullary Nail and Extramedullary Fixation in Treatment of Unstable Intertrochanteric Fractures.

Authors:  Wen-Qiang Zhang; Jian Sun; Chun-Yu Liu; Hong-Yao Zhao; Yi-Feng Sun
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-02-02       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.