Literature DB >> 28346314

Radiographic Review of Helical Blade Versus Lag Screw Fixation for Cephalomedullary Nailing of Low-Energy Peritrochanteric Femur Fractures: There is a Difference in Cutout.

Lorraine C Stern1, John T Gorczyca, Stephen Kates, John Ketz, Gillian Soles, Catherine A Humphrey.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the rate of cutout of helical blades and lag screws in low-energy peritrochanteric femur fractures treated with a cephalomedullary nail (CMN).
DESIGN: Retrospective review.
SETTING: Academic medical center. PATIENTS: Overall, this study included 362 patients with an average age of 83 year old, a majority of whom were women, and had sustained a low-energy peritrochanteric femur fracture treated with a CMN. All patients had at least 3 months of clinical and radiographic follow, with an average follow-up of 11 months and a range of 3-88 months follow-up. INTERVENTION: Cephalomedullary nailing with the use of a helical blade or single lag screw for proximal fixation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Cutout of the helical blade or lag screw.
RESULTS: Twenty-two cutouts occurred, 14 (15.1%) of 93 patients with helical blades and 8 (3.0%) of 269 patients with lag screws. Cutout with the helical blade was significantly more frequent than with the lag screw (P = 0.0001). The average tip-apex distance (TAD) was significantly greater for those patients who experienced cutout both for the helical blades (23.5 vs. 19.7 mm; P = 0.0194) and lag screws (24.5 vs. 20.0 mm; P = 0.0197). An absolute TAD predictive of cutout could not be determined.
CONCLUSIONS: When the helical blade was used, implant cutout occurred at a significantly higher rate compared with lag screw fixation. There was not a threshold TAD that was predictive of cutout for either implant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28346314     DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000853

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Trauma        ISSN: 0890-5339            Impact factor:   2.512


  10 in total

1.  Cephalomedullary helical blade is independently associated with less collapse in intertrochanteric femur fractures than lag screws.

Authors:  L Henry Goodnough; Harsh Wadhwa; Seth S Tigchelaar; Kayla Pfaff; Michael Heffner; Noelle Van Rysselberghe; Malcolm R DeBaun; Julius A Bishop; Michael J Gardner
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2021-02-15

Review 2.  Reoperation rates after proximal femur fracture fixation with single and dual screw femoral nails: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Arjun Sivakumar; Suzanne Edwards; Stuart Millar; Dominic Thewlis; Mark Rickman
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2022-07-05

3.  Effect of Fracture Reduction with Different Medial Cortical Support on Stability After Cephalomedullary Nail Fixation of Unstable Pertrochanteric Fractures: A Biomechanical Analysis.

Authors:  Ling Ling; Zhongyong Qu; Kaihua Zhou
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2021-06-30       Impact factor: 1.033

4.  Trochanteric fixation nail advanced with helical blade and cement augmentation: early experience with a retrospective cohort.

Authors:  L Henry Goodnough; Harsh Wadhwa; Seth S Tigchelaar; Malcolm R DeBaun; Michael J Chen; Julius A Bishop; Michael J Gardner
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2020-08-17

5.  Indications for cement augmentation in fixation of geriatric intertrochanteric femur fractures: a systematic review of evidence.

Authors:  L Henry Goodnough; Harsh Wadhwa; Seth S Tigchelaar; Malcolm R DeBaun; Michael J Chen; Matt L Graves; Michael J Gardner
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-04-07       Impact factor: 2.928

6.  Hip Fractures: Relevant Anatomy, Classification, and Biomechanics of Fracture and Fixation.

Authors:  Young Lu; Harmeeth S Uppal
Journal:  Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil       Date:  2019-07-03

7.  Revision of a blade cut-out in PFN-A fixation: Blade exchange, cement augmentation and a cement plug as a successful salvage option.

Authors:  M S Hanke; N A Beckmann; M J B Keel; K A Siebenrock; J D Bastian
Journal:  Trauma Case Rep       Date:  2020-04-16

8.  Gamma 3 U-Blade lag screws in patients with trochanteric femur fractures: are rotation control lag screws better than others?

Authors:  Jehyun Yoo; Sangmin Kim; Junyoung Choi; Jihyo Hwang
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2019-12-16       Impact factor: 2.359

9.  Mechanical testing of cephalomedullary nail lag screws after the addition of hydroxyapatite substitutes.

Authors:  Takayuki Nakajima; Yasuchika Aoki; Atsuya Watanabe; Masahiro Inoue; Satoshi Yamaguchi; Junichi Nakamura; Yusuke Matsuura; Shigeo Hagiwara; Daisuke Himeno; Seiji Ohtori
Journal:  OTA Int       Date:  2021-12-03

10.  Loss of Reduction after Cephalomedullary Nail Fixation of Intertrochanteric Femoral Fracture: A Brief Report.

Authors:  Yao Pang; Qi-Fang He; Liu-Long Zhu; Zhen-Yu Bian; Mao-Qiang Li
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 2.071

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.