Literature DB >> 34665292

No difference between lag screw and helical blade for cephalomedullary nail cut-out a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mitchell Ng1, Nihar S Shah2, Ivan Golub1, Matthew Ciminero1, Kevin Zhai3, Kevin K Kang1, Ahmed K Emara3, Nicolas S Piuzzi4.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Cephalomedullary nail (CMN) cut-out is a severe complication of treatment of intertrochanteric femur fractures. This study aimed to identify modifiable risk factors predictive of implant cut-out including: CMN proximal fixation type (lag screw vs. helical blade), tip-apex distance (TAD), reduction quality, nail length, screw location, and surgeon fellowship training.
METHODS: A systematic review of the published literature was conducted on Pubmed/MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases for English language papers (January 1st, 1985-May 10th, 2020), with 21 studies meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria. Studies providing quantitative data comparing factors affecting CMN nail cut-out were included, including fixation type (lag screw vs. helical blade), tip-apex distance (TAD), reduction quality, nail length, and screw location. Twelve studies were included and graded by MINOR and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to identify potential biases. Meta-analysis and pooled analysis were conducted when possible with forest plots to summarize odds ratios (OR) and associated 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS: There was no difference in implant cut-out rate between lag screws (n = 745) versus helical blade (n = 371) (OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.25-4.23). Pooled data analysis revealed TAD > 25 mm (n = 310) was associated with higher odds of increased cut-out rate relative to TAD < 25 mm (n = 730) (OR: 3.72; 95% CI: 2.06-6.72).
CONCLUSION: Our review suggests that cephalomedullary implant type (lag screw vs. helical blade) is not a risk factor for implant cut-out. Consistent with the previous literature, increased tip-apex distance > 25 mm is a reliable predictor of implant cut-out risk. Suboptimal screw location and poor reduction quality are associated with increased risk of screw cut-out. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cephalomedullary nail; Helical blade; Implant cut-out; Intertrochanteric fracture; Lag screw; Tip-apex distance

Year:  2021        PMID: 34665292     DOI: 10.1007/s00590-021-03124-8

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


  32 in total

1.  Short Versus Long Cephalomedullary Nails for Pertrochanteric Hip Fractures: A Randomized Prospective Study.

Authors:  Steven F Shannon; Brandon J Yuan; William W Cross; Jonathan D Barlow; Michael E Torchia; Pamela K Holte; Stephen A Sems
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 2.512

2.  Correlation between femoral offset loss and dynamic hip screw cut-out complications after pertrochanteric fractures: a case-control study.

Authors:  Baptiste Boukebous; Pascal Guillon; Eric Vandenbussche; Marc Antoine Rousseau
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2018-04-27

3.  Predictors of cut-out after cephalomedullary nail fixation of pertrochanteric fractures: a retrospective study of 813 patients.

Authors:  Luigi Murena; Antonio Moretti; Francesca Meo; Enrico Saggioro; Giulia Barbati; Chiara Ratti; Gianluca Canton
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2017-12-23       Impact factor: 3.067

4.  Early complications associated with cephalomedullary nail for intertrochanteric hip fractures.

Authors:  Orry Erez; Paul J Dougherty
Journal:  J Trauma Acute Care Surg       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 3.313

5.  Mechanical complications of intertrochanteric hip fractures treated with trochanteric femoral nails.

Authors:  Wanjun Liu; Dongsheng Zhou; Fang Liu; Michael J Weaver; Mark S Vrahas
Journal:  J Trauma Acute Care Surg       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 3.313

Review 6.  Biomechanical rationale for implant choices in femoral neck fracture fixation in the non-elderly.

Authors:  Michalis Panteli; Paul Rodham; Peter V Giannoudis
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2015-01-03       Impact factor: 2.586

7.  Risk factors in cutout of sliding hip screw in intertrochanteric fractures: an evaluation of 937 patients.

Authors:  Kuang-Kai Hsueh; Chi-Kuang Fang; Chuan-Mu Chen; Yu-Ping Su; Heng-Fei Wu; Fang-Yao Chiu
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2009-09-26       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  The 1-year mortality of patients treated in a hip fracture program for elders.

Authors:  Scott Schnell; Susan M Friedman; Daniel A Mendelson; Karilee W Bingham; Stephen L Kates
Journal:  Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil       Date:  2010-09

9.  Epidemiology, treatment and mortality of trochanteric and subtrochanteric hip fractures: data from the Swedish fracture register.

Authors:  Leif Mattisson; Alicja Bojan; Anders Enocson
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2018-10-12       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Incidence and Economic Burden of Intertrochanteric Fracture: A Medicare Claims Database Analysis.

Authors:  Ayoade Adeyemi; Gary Delhougne
Journal:  JB JS Open Access       Date:  2019-02-27
View more
  2 in total

1.  Early hip survival after open reduction internal fixation of acetabular fracture.

Authors:  Joseph T Patterson; Sara B Cook; Reza Firoozabadi
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2022-05-10

Review 2.  Association between Immediate Postoperative Radiographic Findings and Failed Internal Fixation for Trochanteric Fractures: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Norio Yamamoto; Yasushi Tsujimoto; Suguru Yokoo; Koji Demiya; Madoka Inoue; Tomoyuki Noda; Toshifumi Ozaki; Takashi Yorifuji
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-08-19       Impact factor: 4.964

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.