Literature DB >> 25337958

Complications of short versus long cephalomedullary nail for intertrochanteric femur fractures, minimum 1 year follow-up.

Josh Vaughn1, Eric Cohen, Bryan G Vopat, Patrick Kane, Emily Abbood, Christopher Born.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Hip fractures are becoming increasingly common resulting in significant morbidity, mortality and raising healthcare costs. Both short and long cephalomedullary devices are currently employed to treat intertrochanteric hip fractures. However, which device is optimal continues to be debated as each implant has unique characteristics and theoretical advantages. This study looked to identify rates of complications associated with both long and short cephalomedullary nails for the treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed charts from 2006 to 2011, and we identified 256 patients were identified with AO class 31.1-32.3 fractures. Sixty were treated with short nails and 196 with long nails. Radiographs and charts were then analysed for failures and hardware complications.
RESULTS: Catastrophic failure and hardware complication rates were not statistically different between short or long cephalomedullary nails. The overall catastrophic failure rate was 3.1 %; there was a 5 % failure rate in the short-nail group compared with a 2.6 % failure rate in the long-nail group (p = 0.191). There was a 3.33 % secondary femur fracture rate in the short-nail group, compared with none in the long-nail cohort (p = 0.054). The rate of proximal fixation failure was 1.67 % for the short-nail group and 2.0 % in the long-nail group (p = 0.406). DISCUSSION: Our data suggests equivocal outcomes as measured by similar catastrophic failure rate between both short and long cephalomedullary nails for intertrochanteric femur fractures. However, there was an increased risk of secondary femur fracture with short cephalomedullary nails when compared to long nails that approached statistical significance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25337958     DOI: 10.1007/s00590-014-1557-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol        ISSN: 1633-8065


  13 in total

Review 1.  Occurrence of secondary fracture around intramedullary nails used for trochanteric hip fractures: a systematic review of 13,568 patients.

Authors:  Rory Norris; Dhritiman Bhattacharjee; Martyn J Parker
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2011-12-03       Impact factor: 2.586

Review 2.  Hip fracture.

Authors:  Martyn Parker; Antony Johansen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-07-01

Review 3.  Evolving concepts of stability and intramedullary fixation of intertrochanteric fractures--a review.

Authors:  Constantine Kokoroghiannis; Ioannis Aktselis; Anastasios Deligeorgis; Evaggelos Fragkomichalos; Dimos Papadimas; Ioannis Pappadas
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2011-07-14       Impact factor: 2.586

4.  Increased use of intramedullary nails for intertrochanteric proximal femoral fractures in veterans affairs hospitals: a comparative effectiveness study.

Authors:  Tiffany A Radcliff; Elizabeth Regan; Diane C Cowper Ripley; Evelyn Hutt
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2012-05-02       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Prospective randomized controlled trial of an intramedullary nail versus dynamic screw and plate for intertrochanteric fractures of the femur.

Authors:  C I Adams; C M Robinson; C M Court-Brown; M M McQueen
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.512

6.  Nail or plate fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: changing pattern of practice. A review of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Database.

Authors:  Jeffrey O Anglen; James N Weinstein
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Incidence and mortality of hip fractures in the United States.

Authors:  Carmen A Brauer; Marcelo Coca-Perraillon; David M Cutler; Allison B Rosen
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-10-14       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  A prospective randomised comparison of the dynamic hip screw and the gamma locking nail.

Authors:  P J Radford; M Needoff; J K Webb
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1993-09

Review 9.  Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults.

Authors:  Martyn J Parker; Helen H G Handoll
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2008-07-16

10.  Early experience with the gamma interlocking nail for peritrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur.

Authors:  R W Lindsey; P Teal; R A Probe; D Rhoads; S Davenport; K Schauder
Journal:  J Trauma       Date:  1991-12
View more
  20 in total

Review 1.  Reduction techniques for difficult subtrochanteric fractures.

Authors:  Zinon T Kokkalis; Andreas F Mavrogenis; Dimitris I Ntourantonis; Vasilios G Igoumenou; Thekla Antoniadou; Renos Karamanis; Panayiotis D Megaloikonomos; Georgios N Panagopoulos; Dimitrios Giannoulis; Eleftheria Souliotis; Theodosis Saranteas; Panayiotis J Papagelopoulos; Elias Panagiotopoulos
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2018-05-31

2.  Short versus long intramedullary nails for treatment of intertrochanteric femur fractures (AO 31-A1 and AO 31-A2): a systematic review.

Authors:  Pernille Bovbjerg; Lonnie Froberg; Hagen Schmal
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2019-07-18

3.  Biomechanical evaluation of the risk of secondary fracture around short versus long cephalomedullary nails.

Authors:  William E Daner; John R Owen; Jennifer S Wayne; Ryan B Graves; Mark C Willis
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2017-06-08

4.  Prevention of inaccurate targeting of proximal screws during reconstruction femoral nailing.

Authors:  Ji Wan Kim; Derly O Cuellar; Jiandong Hao; Benoit Herbert; Cyril Mauffrey
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2016-04-05

5.  How are peri-implant fractures below short versus long cephalomedullary nails different?

Authors:  L Henry Goodnough; Brett P Salazar; Jamie Furness; James E Feng; Malcolm R DeBaun; Sean T Campbell; Justin F Lucas; William W Cross; Philipp Leucht; Kevin D Grant; Michael J Gardner; Julius A Bishop
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2020-09-09

6.  Nailing unstable pertrochanteric fractures: does size matters?

Authors:  Rafael Luque Pérez; Pablo Checa Betegón; María Galán-Olleros; Camila Arvinius; Jose Valle-Cruz; Fernando Marco
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2020-11-04       Impact factor: 3.067

7.  Short vs. long intramedullary nail systems in trochanteric fractures: A randomized prospective single center study.

Authors:  Șerban Dragosloveanu; Christiana D M Dragosloveanu; Dragoș C Cotor; Cristian I Stoica
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 2.447

8.  Treatment of Intertrochanteric Femur Fractures with Long versus Short Cephalomedullary Nails.

Authors:  Cameron Sadeghi; Heather A Prentice; Kanu M Okike; Elizabeth W Paxton
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2020

9.  Biomechanical stability of short versus long proximal femoral nails in osteoporotic subtrochanteric A3 reverse-oblique femoral fractures: a cadaveric study.

Authors:  Christoph Linhart; Manuel Kistler; Adrian C Kussmaul; Matthias Woiczinski; Wolfgang Böcker; Christian Ehrnthaller
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-01-21       Impact factor: 3.067

Review 10.  Long versus short cephalomedullary nail for trochanteric femur fractures (OTA 31-A1, A2 and A3): a systematic review.

Authors:  John Dunn; Nicholas Kusnezov; Julia Bader; Brian R Waterman; Justin Orr; Philip J Belmont
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2016-04-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.