A biomechanical comparison of two cephalomedullary nails; one using a single lag screw with antirotator blade and a nail using two lag screws for unstable intertrochanteric fractures
Keywords:Intertrochanteric fracture, Cephalomedullary nail, Antirotator blade, Single lag screw
Background: Implant choice for fixation of intertrochanteric fractures remains controversial despite being one of the most commonly performed operations. Although use of sliding hip screws is still considered a gold standard in treatment of these fractures, there is a wide tendency in using cephalomedullary nails because of their biomechanical superiority over sliding hip screws. This trial was initiated in order to compare the biomechanical properties of two different cephalomedullary nails, aPFN and the PROFIN under axial loading, based on the questions that can a single lag screw with an antirotator blade render better rotational stability? Is there a difference between one lag screw or two lag screws with respect to superior migration or cut-out of the screws? And do different nail designs cause different types of failure and what are the pros and cons of classical and new designs from the view point of biomechanical aspects?
Methods: Ten pairs of third generation synthetic bone models simulating unstable intertrochanteric fracture were used for biomechanical testing.
Results: No posterior displacement of screws was recorded in both groups suggesting rotational unstability. There was not a significant difference between forces values loaded at the time of failure.
Conclusions: Although there was no statistically significant difference between compressive strengths at the time of failure, aPFN may provide equal rigid fixation with less possible cut-out which may have an important consequences in real clinical applications.
Queally JM, Harris E, Handoll HH, Parker MJ. Intramedullary nails for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;12(9):CD004961.
Jones HW, Johnston P, Parker M. Are short femoral nails superior to the sliding hip screw? a meta-analysis of 24 studies involving 3,279 fractures. Int Orthop. 2006;30(2):69-78.
Mereddy P, Kamath S, Ramakrishnan M, Malik H, Donnachie N. The AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA): a new design for the treatment of unstable proximalfemoral fractures. Injury. 2009;40(4):428-32.
Radford PJ, Needoff M, Webb JK. A prospective randomised comparison of the dynamic hip screw and the gamma locking nail. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75:789-93.
Alyassari G, Langstaff RJ, Jones JW, Allami M. The AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail (PFN) for the treatment of unstable trochanteric femoral fracture. Injury.2002;33:395-9.
Tasyıkan L, Ugutmen E, Sanel S, Soylemez MS, Ozkan K, Solakoglu C. Short-term results of surgical treatment with cephalomedullary nails for basicervical proximal femoral fractures. Acta Orthop Belg. 2015;81(3):427-34.
Ozkan K, Unay K, Demircay C, Cakir M, Eceviz E. Distal unlocked proximal femoral intramedullary nailing for intertrochanteric femur fractures. Int Orthop. 2009;33(5):1397-400.
Windolf J, Hollander DA, Hakimi M, Linhart W. Proximal femoral nail (PFN): pitfalls and complications in the use of the proximal femoral nail. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2005;390:59-65.
Schipper IB, Steyerberg EW, Castelein RM, Heijden FH, Hoed PT, Kerver AJ, et al. Treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures. Randomised comparison of the gamma nail and the proximalfemoral nail. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86(1):86-94.
Gardenbroek TJ, Segers MJ, Simmermacher RK, Hammacher ER. The proximal femur nail antirotation: an identifiable improvement in the treatment of unstable pertrochanteric fractures? J Trauma. 2011;71(1):169-74.
Wang CJ, Brown CJ, Yettram AL. Intramedullary femoral nails: one or two lag screws? a preliminary study. Med Eng Phys. 2000;22:613-24.
Boldin C, Seibert FJ, Fankhauser F, Peicha G, Grechenig W, Szyszkowitz R. The proximal femoral nail (PFN)-a minimal invasive treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures: a prospective study of 55 patients with a follow up of 15 months. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003;74:53-8.
Luo Q, Yuen G, Lau TW, Yeung K, Leung F (2013) A biomechanical study comparing helical blade with screw design for sliding hip fixations of unstable intertrochanteric fractures. Scientific World Journal. 2013:1-6.
AO/ASIF PFNA. Leading the way to optimal stability: Synthesis original instruments and implants of the association for the study of internal fixation. AO/ASIF. Stratec Medical. 2004:1-44.
Penzkofer J, Mendel T, Bauer C, Brehme K. Treatment results of pertrochanteric and subtrochanteric femoral fractures: a retrospective comparison of PFN and PFNA. Unfallchirurg. 2009;112(8):699-705.
Schwarzkopf R, Takemoto RC, Kummer FJ, Egol KA. Helical blade vs telescoping lag screw for intertrochanteric fracture fixation. Am J Orthop. 2011;40(9):452-6.
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(10):984-9.
Kubiak EN, Bong M, Park SS, Kummer F, Egol K, Koval KJ. Intramedullary fixation of unstable intertrochanteric hip fractures: one or two lag screws. J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18(1):12-7.
Bong MR, Patel V, Iesaka K, Egol KA, Kummer FJ, Koval KJ. Comparison of a sliding hip screw with a trochanteric lateral support plate to an intramedullary hip screw for fixation of unstable intertrochanteric hip fractures: a cadaver study. J Trauma. 2004;56(4):791-4.
Poyanli OS, Soylemez S, Ozkut AT, Uygur E, Kemah B, Unal OK. Precise placement of lag screws in operative treatment of trochanteric femoral fractures with a new guide system. Injury. 2015;46(11):2190-5.