Literature DB >> 26948107

The long and short of cephalomedullary nails in the treatment of osteoporotic pertrochanteric fracture.

Choon Chiet Hong1, Nazrul Nashi1, Milindu Chanaka Makandura1, Jiong Hao Jonathan Tan1, Luke Peter1, Diarmuid Murphy1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Pertrochanteric fractures after low-energy trauma are common among osteoporotic patients. Although the use of intramedullary devices to treat such fractures is becoming increasingly popular, there is a paucity of data comparing the outcomes of the use of short cephalomedullary nails (SCN) with the use of long cephalomedullary nails (LCN). This study aimed to compare the outcomes of treatment using LCN with treatment using SCN for patients with osteoporotic pertrochanteric fractures.
METHODS: A retrospective review of 64 patients with osteoporotic pertrochanteric fractures who were treated with either LCN or SCN and had a minimum follow-up of one year was performed. Primary outcome measures include complications, revision surgeries and union rates. Secondary outcome measures include duration of surgery, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and ambulatory and mortality status at one year.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the clinical and functional outcomes of the patients who were treated with LCN and those who were treated with SCN. However, there was a higher incidence of heterotopic ossification in the latter group, and a slightly greater average estimated blood loss and duration of surgery in the former group. Patients treated with LCN tended to be more osteoporotic.
CONCLUSION: Our study found no significant difference in terms of complications, revision surgeries, union rates and ambulatory status between the patients who were treated with LCN and those who were treated with SCN. Both LCN and SCN provided safe and reliable outcomes in the treatment of osteoporotic pertrochanteric fractures. Copyright: © Singapore Medical Association

Entities:  

Keywords:  cephalomedullary nails; complications; osteoporosis; pertrochanteric fracture; short versus long nail

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26948107      PMCID: PMC5311889          DOI: 10.11622/smedj.2016048

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Singapore Med J        ISSN: 0037-5675            Impact factor:   1.858


  25 in total

1.  The Gamma nail--a significant advance or a passing fashion?

Authors:  P T Calvert
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1992-05

Review 2.  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

3.  Percutaneous treatment of peritrochanteric fractures using the Gamma nail.

Authors:  C Bellabarba; D Herscovici; W M Ricci
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  The standard Gamma nail: a critical analysis of 1,000 cases.

Authors:  C Kukla; T Heinz; C Gaebler; G Heinze; V Vécsei
Journal:  J Trauma       Date:  2001-07

5.  The diagnosis of osteoporosis.

Authors:  J A Kanis; L J Melton; C Christiansen; C C Johnston; N Khaltaev
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 6.741

6.  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

7.  Fracture and dislocation classification compendium - 2007: Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification, database and outcomes committee.

Authors:  J L Marsh; Theddy F Slongo; Julie Agel; J Scott Broderick; William Creevey; Thomas A DeCoster; Laura Prokuski; Michael S Sirkin; Bruce Ziran; Brad Henley; Laurent Audigé
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2007 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.512

Review 8.  Are there advances in the treatment of extracapsular hip fractures in the elderly?

Authors:  Richard Stern
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.586

9.  Hip fractures in the elderly: a world-wide projection.

Authors:  C Cooper; G Campion; L J Melton
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Treatment of pertrochanteric fractures (OTA 31-A1 and A2): long versus short cephalomedullary nailing.

Authors:  Zhiyong Hou; Thomas R Bowen; Kaan S Irgit; Michelle E Matzko; Cassondra M Andreychik; Daniel S Horwitz; Wade R Smith
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 2.512

View more
  5 in total

1.  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

2.  Failure of short versus long cephalomedullary nail after intertrochanteric fractures.

Authors:  Pernille Engell Bovbjerg; Morten Schultz Larsen; Carsten Fladmose Madsen; Jesper Schønnemann
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2019-11-06

Review 3.  Comparison of a twin interlocking derotation and compression screw cephalomedullary nail (InterTAN) with a single screw derotation cephalomedullary nail (proximal femoral nail antirotation): a systematic review and meta-analysis for intertrochanteric fractures.

Authors:  Leo Nherera; Paul Trueman; Alan Horner; Tracy Watson; Alan J Johnstone
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2018-03-02       Impact factor: 2.359

4.  Clinical outcomes following long versus short cephalomedullary devices for fixation of extracapsular hip fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Gabriel Kai Yang Tan; Christoph Sheng Chong; Hamid Rahmatullah Bin Abd Razak
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-12-14       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Similar function and complications for patients with short versus long hip nailing for unstable pertrochanteric fractures.

Authors:  Ioannis P Galanopoulos; Andreas F Mavrogenis; Panayiotis D Megaloikonomos; Christos T Vottis; Evanthia Mitsiokapa; Panayiotis Koulouvaris; Dimitrios S Mastrokalos; Panayiotis J Papagelopoulos; Vasilios A Kontogeorgakos
Journal:  SICOT J       Date:  2018-06-15
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.