Literature DB >> 29724590

Cement augmentation of the Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) - A multicentre randomized controlled trial.

Christian Kammerlander1, Einar S Hem2, Tim Klopfer3, Florian Gebhard4, An Sermon5, Michael Dietrich6, Olaf Bach7, Yoram Weil8, Reto Babst9, Michael Blauth10.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: New implant designs like the Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) were developed to reduce failure rates in unstable pertrochanteric fractures in the elderly. Standardized implant augmentation with up to 6 mL of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cement has been introduced to enhance implant anchorage by increasing the implant-bone interface in osteoporotic bone conditions. Biomechanically, loads to failure were significantly higher with augmentation. The primary objective of this study was to compare the mobility of patients with closed unstable trochanteric fractures treated by PFNA either with or without cement augmentation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective multicentre, randomized, patient-blinded trial was conducted with ambulatory patients aged 75 or older who sustained a closed, unstable trochanteric fracture. Surgical fixation had to be performed within 72 h after admission. Outcomes were evaluated at baseline, during surgery, 3 to 14 days after surgery, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery. To evaluate the primary objective, patients' walking speed was assessed by the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test. Secondary objectives included the analysis of implant migration assessed on radiographs, quality of life measured by the Barthel Index, mobility measured by the Parker Mobility Score, and complications.
RESULTS: Of 253 randomized patients, 223 patients were eligible: 105 patients were allocated to the PFNA Augmentation group and 118 to PFNA group. At 3 to 14 days after surgery, there was no statistical significant difference in mean walking speed between the treatment groups. For the secondary objectives, also no statistical significant differences were found. However, no patient in the PFNA Augmentation group had a reoperation due to mechanical failure or symptomatic implant migration compared to 6 patients in the PFNA group.
CONCLUSIONS: Augmentation of the PFNA blade did not improve patients' walking ability compared to the use of a non-augmented PFNA but might have the potential to prevent reoperations by strengthening the osteosynthesis construct.
Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Augmentation; Catastrophic failure; Multicentre randomized trial; PFNA; Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation; Trochanteric hip fractures; Unstable

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29724590     DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2018.04.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Injury        ISSN: 0020-1383            Impact factor:   2.586


  21 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

2.  Use of a Trochanteric Fixation Nail-Advanced (TFNA) with cement augmentation for treatment of trochanteric fractures in patients greater than sixty five years of age.

Authors:  Marie Fernandez; Yoann David; Frédéric Dubrana; Rémi Di Francia
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2022-01-16       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  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

4.  Rehabilitation protocols in unstable trochanteric fractures treated with cephalomedullary nails in elderly: current practices and outcome.

Authors:  Xavier Lizano-Díez; Marius Johann Baptist Keel; Klaus Arno Siebenrock; Marc Tey; Johannes Dominik Bastian
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2020-01-03       Impact factor: 3.693

Review 5.  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

6.  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

7.  Local bone quality measure and construct failure prediction: a biomechanical study on distal femur fractures.

Authors:  Thomas Vordemvenne; Dirk Wähnert; Dominic Gehweiler; Ursula Styger; Boyko Gueorguiev; Christian Colcuc
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-02-15       Impact factor: 2.928

8.  Early Experience with the Trochanteric Fixation Nail-Advanced (TFN-A): A Descriptive Review of Thirty-Four Cases from a Single Center.

Authors:  Joshua De Castro Unsay; Ivan Chua Tjun Huat; Ernest Kwek Beng Kee
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2020-08-20       Impact factor: 1.251

9.  Trans-sacral bar osteosynthesis provides low mortality and high mobility in patients with fragility fractures of the pelvis.

Authors:  Daniel Wagner; Miha Kisilak; Geoffrey Porcheron; Sven Krämer; Isabella Mehling; Alexander Hofmann; Pol M Rommens
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-09       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Cement augmentation for trochanteric femur fractures: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials and observational studies.

Authors:  Ingmar F Rompen; Matthias Knobe; Bjoern-Christian Link; Frank J P Beeres; Ralf Baumgaertner; Nadine Diwersi; Filippo Migliorini; Sven Nebelung; Reto Babst; Bryan J M van de Wall
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-06-15       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.