Literature DB >> 29043506

Fatigue failure of the cephalomedullary nail: revision options, outcomes and review of the literature.

Adam Tucker1, Michael Warnock2, Sinead McDonald3, Laurence Cusick4, Andrew P Foster2.   

Abstract

Cephalomedullary nail (CMN) failure is a rare entity following hip fracture treatment. However, it poses significant challenges for revision surgery, both mechanically and biologically. Nail failure rates have been reported at < 2%; however, no published studies have reported revision surgery procedures and their respective outcomes. We present a regional experience, with outcomes, of the revision options. We identified 20 fatigued CMNs that underwent four different revision procedures. Mean age was 73 ± 15.24 years, with a 3:1 female preponderance, and a median ASA grade of 3. Post-operative CMN radiographs demonstrated a significant number of fractures were fixed in varus, with reductions in neck-shaft angles post-operatively. A "poor" quality of reduction resulted in significantly earlier nail failure, compared to "adequate" and "good" (p = 0.027). Tip-Apex Distance (TAD) mean was 23.2 ± 8.3 mm, and an adequate TAD with three-point fixation was seen in only 35% of cases. Mean time to failure was 401.0 ± 237.2 days, with mean age at failure of 74.0 ± 14.8 years. Options after failure included revision CMN nail, proximal femoral locking plate (PFLP), long-stem or restoration arthroplasty, or femoral endoprosthesis. Barthel Functional Index scores showed no significant difference at 3 and 12 months post-operatively, nor any difference between treatment groups. Mean 12-month mortality was 30%, akin to a primary hip fracture mortality risk according to NICE guidelines. Mortality rates were lowest in revision nails. Subsequent revision rates were higher in the PFLP group. There is no reported evidence on the best surgical technique for managing the failed CMN, with no clear functional benefit in the options above. Good surgical technique at the time of primary CMN surgery is critical in minimising fatigue failure. After revision, overall mortality rates were equivalent to reported primary hip fracture mortality rates. Further multicentre evaluations are required to assess which technique convey the best functional outcomes without compromising 12-month mortality rates.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cephalomedullary nail; Fatigue failure; Fracture; Hip; Revision

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29043506     DOI: 10.1007/s00590-017-2059-9

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


  53 in total

1.  Implant failure of the gamma nail.

Authors:  C Gaebler; S Stanzl-Tschegg; E K Tschegg; C Kukla; W A Menth-Chiari; G E Wozasek; T Heinz
Journal:  Injury       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 2.586

2.  Finite element study of trochanteric gamma nail for trochanteric fracture.

Authors:  K Sitthiseripratip; H Van Oosterwyck; J Vander Sloten; B Mahaisavariya; E L J Bohez; J Suwanprateeb; R Van Audekercke; P Oris
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 2.242

3.  Osteogenic protein-1 (bone morphogenetic protein-7) in the treatment of tibial nonunions.

Authors:  G E Friedlaender; C R Perry; J D Cole; S D Cook; G Cierny; G F Muschler; G A Zych; J H Calhoun; A J LaForte; S Yin
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Use of the Gamma nail in the treatment of fractures of the proximal femur.

Authors:  J A Valverde; M G Alonso; J G Porro; D Rueda; P M Larrauri; J J Soler
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 5.  Biomechanical characteristics and surgical management of subtrochanteric fractures.

Authors:  J W Fielding; G V Cochran; R E Zickel
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  1974-07       Impact factor: 2.472

6.  Hip arthroplasty for salvage of failed treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures.

Authors:  George J Haidukewych; Daniel J Berry
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 7.  What's new in the management of proximal femoral fractures?

Authors:  V S Nikolaou; A Papathanasopoulos; P V Giannoudis
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2008-11-25       Impact factor: 2.586

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.  Unstable intertrochanteric hip fractures in the elderly.

Authors:  Dieter M Lindskog; Michael R Baumgaertner
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2004 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.020

10.  A biomechanical comparison of proximal femoral nails and locking proximal anatomic femoral plates in femoral fracture fixation: A study on synthetic bones.

Authors:  Korhan Ozkan; İsmail Türkmen; Adem Sahin; Yavuz Yildiz; Selim Erturk; Mehmet Salih Soylemez
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2015 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.251

View more
  10 in total

1.  Cement augmentation of the proximal femur nail antirotation: is it safe?

Authors:  Konrad Schuetze; S Ehinger; A Eickhoff; C Dehner; F Gebhard; P H Richter
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2020-07-25       Impact factor: 3.067

Review 2.  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

Review 3.  Is rotation the mode of failure in pertrochanteric fractures fixed with nails? Theoretical approach and illustrative cases.

Authors:  C Kokoroghiannis; D Vasilakos; K Zisis; G Dimitriou; E Pappa; D Evangelopoulos
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2019-09-20

4.  Coronal shear fractures of the femoral neck: a comparison with basicervical fractures.

Authors:  Yasuaki Yamakawa; Norio Yamamoto; Yosuke Tomita; Tomoyuki Noda; Tomoo Inoue; Toshiyuki Matsumoto; Keisuke Kawasaki; Toshifumi Ozaki
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2022-08-18       Impact factor: 2.374

5.  Implant fracture of the TFNA femoral nail.

Authors:  Sandeep Krishan Nayar; Srinath Ranjit; Oliver Adebayo; Syed Mahmood Hassan; John Hambidge
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2021-09-20

6.  Comparison of standard versus reconstruction proximal interlocking screw configurations for antegrade intramedullary nail fixation of femoral shaft fractures.

Authors:  Jihyo Hwang; Darryl F Cannady; Samantha Nino; Kenneth J Koval; Joshua R Langford; Joshua A Parry
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2021-03-01

Review 7.  Revision surgery due to failed internal fixation of intertrochanteric femoral fracture: current state-of-the-art.

Authors:  Pei Liu; Dongxu Jin; Changqing Zhang; Youshui Gao
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-08-22       Impact factor: 2.362

8.  Teriparatide as an Effective Nonsurgical Treatment for a Patient with Basicervical Peritrochanteric Fracture Nonunion-A Case Report.

Authors:  Cheng-Han Ho; Shi-Chien Tzeng; Chui-Jia Farn; Chia-Che Lee
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2022-07-23       Impact factor: 2.948

9.  Radiologic predictor of intraoperative lateral wall fractures in treatment of pertrochanteric fractures with cephalomedullary nailing.

Authors:  Jun-Qi Dai; Dongxu Jin; Changqing Zhang; Yi-Gang Huang
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 1.671

10.  Proximal Femoral Non-unions with Implant In Situ Treated by Revision Osteosynthesis: A Real Challenge.

Authors:  Anoop Kalia; Jagdeep Singh; Sorabh Garg; Rajdeep Singh
Journal:  J Orthop Case Rep       Date:  2020-12
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.