Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2020; 87(4):268-272 | DOI: 10.55095/achot2020/040

Porovnanie dvojskrutkového implantátu a antirotačnej čepele pri liečbe trochanterických zlomenín femuruPůvodní práce

J. FELDINSZKÁ*, P. JACKO, J. BARINKA, M. KILIAN, P. ŠIMKO
Klinika úrazovej chirurgie SZU a UNB, Nemocnica akademika Ladislava Dérera, Bratislava

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY:
Surgical treatment of trochanteric fractures with intramedullary nailing still remains controversial as to which nail design is the best with no postoperative complications. The purpose of this study was to provide a comparative evaluation of complications in the treatment of trochanteric fractures using 2-screw proximal femoral nail versus proximal femoral anti-rotational blade nail.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:
A retrospective review was conducted between March 2013 and March 2019. The study included 519 patients (358 females and 161 males) treated surgically for trochanteric fractures. The mean age was 79.8±12.0 (24-100) years. A1.2 type of fracture occurred in 153 (29.5%) cases, A1.3 type in 155 (29.9%), A 2.2 type in 90 (17.4%), A2.3 type in 95 (18.3%), A3.1 type in 11 (2.1%), A3.2 type in 7 (1.3%) and A3.3 type in 8 (1.5%) cases. Patients were treated either by 2-screw nail PFN (393 patients (75.7%) or by anti-rotational blade nail PFNA (126 patients (24.3%).

RESULTS:
Our primary objective was to evaluate the implant related complications (e.g. cut-out, back-out, irritation, peri-implant fractures). Other complications (infection) and revision surgeries were also recorded. Complications were observed in 38 (9.7%) patients with PFN nail and 7 (5.6 %) patients with PFNA blade nail (p = 0.15). Screw back-out (n = 11) and cut-out (n = 11) were the most frequent complications in patients treated by 2-screw PFN nail and occurred in 5.6%. In the PFNA group, cut-out occurred in 1.6% (n = 2) of cases while no cases of back-out were reported. Infection (n=3) was the most common complication in the latter group and represented 2.4%. In the PFN group the infection rate was 2.3% (n = 9). There were no statistically significant differences between both the groups considering implant-related complications (p = 0.14) and infections (p = 1.0). Revision surgery was performed in 33 patients (66.7%).

DISCUSSION:
Biomechanical studies of intramedullary nails suggest good results with minimal complications if a two-screw implant is used. When antirotational blade is used, compression of spongiosis around blade is observed, which increases stability, especially in an osteoporotic bone. In our study, complications in these two types of nails were retrospectively compared. Considered as the limitation of our study is the retrospective nature of evaluation, which made it impossible the create two study groups with equal or similar number of patients, to follow up the patients postoperatively for a long period of time and to evaluate fracture union and limb function.

CONCLUSIONS:
In our study no statistically significant difference in postoperative mechanical and infectious complications was confirmed between the 2-screw proximal femoral nail and the proximal femoral nail with antirotational blade. We have arrived at the conclusion that both types of nails are equivalent in treating trochanteric fractures.

Klíčová slova: intramedullary nail, screw, blade, trochanteric fracture, complication

Zveřejněno: 1. srpen 2020  Zobrazit citaci

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
FELDINSZKÁ J, JACKO P, BARINKA J, KILIAN M, ŠIMKO P. Porovnanie dvojskrutkového implantátu a antirotačnej čepele pri liečbe trochanterických zlomenín femuru. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2020;87(4):268-272. doi: 10.55095/achot2020/040. PubMed PMID: 32940222.
Stáhnout citaci

Reference

  1. Al-Munajjed AA, Hammer J, Mayr E, Nerlich M, Lenich A. Biomechanical characterisation of osteosyntheses for proximal femur fractures: helical blade versus screw. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2008;133:1-10. Přejít na PubMed...
  2. D'Arrigo C, Carcangiu A, Perugia D, Scapellato S, Alonzo R, Frontini S, Ferretti A. Intertrochanteric fractures: comparison between two different locking nails. Int Orthop. 2012;36:2545-2551. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  3. Douša P, Čech O, Weissinger M, Džupa V. [Trochanteric femoral fractures]. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2013;80(1):15-26. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  4. Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM, Keggi JM. The value of the tip-apex distance in predicting failure of fixation of peritrochanteric fractures of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77:1058-1064. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  5. Hohendorff B, Meyer P, Menezes D, Meier L, Elke R. Treatment results and complications after PFN osteosynthesis. Unfallchirurg. 2005;108:938, 940, 941-946. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  6. Jian-Xiong M, Ming-Jie K, Zheng-Rui F, Fei X, Yun-Long Z, Lu-Kai Z, Heng-Ting C, Chao H, Xin-Long M. Comparison of clinical outcomes with InterTan vs Gamma nail or PFNA in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures: a meta-analysis. Nature. 2015;15962.
  7. Kim JW, Kim TY, Ha YC, Lee YK, Koo KH. Outcome of intertrochanteric fractures treated by intramedullary nail with two integrated lag screws: a study in Asian population. Indian J Orthop. 2015;49,436-441. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  8. Kregor PJ, Obremskey WT, Kreder HJ, Swiontkowski MF, Evidence-Based Orthopaedic Trauma Working Group. Unstable pertrochanteric femoral fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2005;19:63-66. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  9. Metzger PCH, Lombardi M. Chapter 25 - Orthopedic trauma. In: Kauffman TL, Scott RW, Barr JO, Moran ML. A comprehensive guide to geriatric rehabilitation (3rd ed.), Churchill Livingstone, 2014, pp.171-177. Přejít k původnímu zdroji...
  10. Nüchtern JV, Ruecer AH, Sellenschloh K, Rupprecht M, Püschel K, Rueger JM, Morlock MM, Lehmann W. Malpositioning of the lag screws by 1- or 2-screw nailing systems for pertrochanteric femoral fractures: a biomechanical comparison of Gamma 3 and Intertan. J Orhop Trauma. 2014;28:276-282. Přejít k původnímu zdroji...
  11. Ozkan K., Türkmen I., Sahin A., Yildiz Y, Erturk S, Soylemez MS. A biomechanical comparison of proximal femoral nails and locking proximal anatomic femoral plates in femoral fracture fixation: a study on synthetic bones. Indian J Orthop. 2015;49:347-351. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  12. Ozkan K, Unay K, Demircay C, Cakir M, Eceviz E. Distal unlocked proximal femoral intramedullary nailing for intertrochanteric femur fractures. Int Orthop. 2009;33:1397-1400. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  13. Raviraj A, Anand A, Chakravarthy M, Pai S. Proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) for treatment of osteoporotic proximal femoral fractures. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2012;22:301-305. Přejít k původnímu zdroji...
  14. Sharma A, Mahajan A, John B. A Comparison of the clinico-radiological outcomes with proximal femoral nail (PFN) and proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) in fixation of unstable intertrochanteric fractures. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11:RC05-RC09. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  15. Strauss E, Frank J, Lee J, Kummer FJ, Tejwani N. Helical blade versus sliding hip screw for treatment of unstable intertrochanteric hip fractures: a biomechanical evaluation. Injury. 2006;37:984-989. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  16. Wu D, Ren G, Peng C, Zheng X, Mao F, Zhang Y. InterTan nail versus Gamma3 nail for intramedullary nailing of unstable trochanteric fractures. Diagn Pathol. 2014;9:191. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...