38
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      To submit to Bentham Journals, please click here

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The PFNA® Augmented in Revision Surgery of Proximal Femur Fractures

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives:

          Modern implants for proximal femur fracture treatment have clearly improved clinical results. However, complications, including cut-out and loss of reduction, requiring revision surgery still occur. A major challenge in these cases is a loss of bone stock due to the existing implant, which is usually exacerbated by osteoporosis. A potential solution is the augmentation of implants, for example, of the femoral neck blade using bone cement.

          Materials and Methods:

          Ten patients (five loosening of femoral neck implant, two pseudarthrosis, two implant failures and one acute fracture) were included. The initial hardware was removed and a PFNA augmented was implanted. The perforated femoral neck blade was augmented using polymethyl methacrylate cement. Clinical and radiological follow-up was performed at a mean of 5.4 months (SD ±4.34). The main outcome parameters were fracture healing and implant-related complications.

          Results:

          Technical handling was uneventful in all cases. No cement leakage into the joint occurred in any of the cases. The mean amount of cement injected was 5.3 ml. The fracture healed during follow-up in all cases except two patients who died from causes unrelated to the procedure and prior to complete consolidation. Problem-free elective hardware removal of the PFNA augmented was performed in two cases.

          Discussion:

          The PFNA augmented is a potential implant for joint-preserving revision surgery in proximal femur fractures. The augmentation improves implant anchorage in the impaired bone stock. In this preliminary series, no negative biological side effects of the cement (i.e. osteonecrosis) were observed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Critical factors in cut-out complication after gamma nail treatment of proximal femoral fractures

          Background The most common mechanical failure in the internal fixation of trochanteric hip fractures is the cut-out of the sliding screw through the femoral head. Several factors that influence this complication have been suggested, but there is no consensus as to the relative importance of each factor. The purpose of this study was to analyse the cut-out complication with respect to the following variables: patients’ age, fracture type, fracture reduction, implant positioning and implant design. Methods 3066 consecutive patients were treated for trochanteric fractures with Gamma Nails between 1990 and 2002 at the Centre de Traumatologie et de l`Orthopedie (CTO), Strasbourg, France. Cut-out complications were identified by reviewing all available case notes and radiographs. Subsequently, the data were analysed by a single reviewer (AJB) with focus on the studied factors. Results Seventy-one cut-out complications were found (2.3%) of the 3066 trochanteric fractures. Cut-out failure associated with avascular head necrosis, pathologic fracture, deep infection or secondary to prior failure of other implants were excluded from the study (14 cases). The remaining 57 cases (1.85 %, median age 82.6, 79% females) were believed to have a biomechanical explanation for the cut-out failure. 41 patients had a basicervical or complex fracture type. A majority of cut-outs (43 hips, 75%) had a combination of the critical factors studied; non-anatomical reduction, non-optimal lag screw position and the characteristic fracture pattern found. Conclusions The primary cut-out rate of 1.85% was low compared with the literature. A typical cut-out complication in our study is represented by an unstable fracture involving the trochanteric and cervical regions or the combination of both, non-anatomical reduction and non-optimal screw position. Surgeons confronted with proximal femoral fractures should carefully scrutinize preoperative radiographs to assess the primary fracture geometry and fracture classification. To reduce the risk of a cut-out it is important to achieve both anatomical reduction and optimal lag screw position as these are the only two factors that can be controlled by the surgeon.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

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

            The aim of this study was designed to assess the risk factors of lag-screw cutout in the treatment of intertrochanteric fracture with a dynamic hip screw (DHS). From 2003 to 2007, 1,150 patients who had acute unilateral intertrochanteric fractures of the femur were enrolled to the study. All fractures were managed by closed reduction and internal fixation with 135° DHS devices. Patient demographics, fracture patterns, reduction and fixation and perioperative course parameters were all recorded. The follow-up period was 38 months on average (range 16-60 months). Finally, 937 patients were available for evaluation of final results in which we focused on lag-screw cutout. Excluding complications not related to screw position, 64 patients (6.8%) with screw cutout were encountered, and the remaining 873 patients had uneventful union, with the average union time of 17.5 weeks (range15-24 weeks). Upon analysis with logistic regression, the tip-apex distance (TAD) was shown to be the most important predictive factor for cutout, followed by screw position, fracture pattern, reduction and patient age. In order to decrease the risk of lag-screw cutout, it is important to ensure good fracture reduction and to place the lag screw in either the middle/middle or inferior/middle position with appropriate TAD.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA): a new design for the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures.

              PFNA design compacts the cancellous bone to provide increased stability and has been bio-mechanically proven to retard rotation and varus collapse. Between 2006 and 2007, 62 consecutive patients with unstable proximal femoral fractures were treated with the PFNA. Twenty males and 42 females with a mean age of 78 years (44-94) were reviewed. In 48 patients, the fracture resulted from a low energy injury. The majority of the fractures belonged to AO/ASIF types 31A2.3 (22) and 31A3.2 (29). Twelve patients required open reduction. The PFNA blade position was central in 52 patients with a mean tip-apex distance (TAD) of 12 mm (range 4-34 mm). Post-operatively, five patients died within 3 months and two patients were lost to follow-up. Forty-nine fractures united between 3 and 4 months. Four patients had delayed union. The PFNA blade cut out rate was 3.6%. Unstable proximal femoral fractures were treated successfully with the PFNA. The PFNA blade appears to provide additional anchoring in osteoporotic bone. No results have been published on this new design.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Open Orthop J
                Open Orthop J
                TOORTHJ
                The Open Orthopaedics Journal
                Bentham Open
                1874-3250
                11 July 2014
                2014
                : 8
                : 232-236
                Affiliations
                Ulm University, Department of Orthopaedic Trauma, Ulm, Germany
                Author notes
                [* ]Address correspondence to this author at the Ulm University, Department of Orthopaedic Trauma, Albert-Einstein-Allee 23, 89081 Ulm, Germany; Tel: +49 731 50054573; Fax: +49 731 50054502; E-mail: alexander.scola@ 123456uniklinik-ulm.de
                Article
                TOORTHJ-8-232
                10.2174/1874325001408010232
                4136372
                25136390
                7aaa0f50-42c0-4e28-980d-27d956f39ee8
                © Scola et al.; Licensee Bentham Open.

                This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.

                History
                : 1 April 2014
                : 23 May 2014
                : 10 June 2014
                Categories
                Article

                Orthopedics
                augmentation,cut-out,cut-through,osteoporosis,pfna,proximal femur fracture.
                Orthopedics
                augmentation, cut-out, cut-through, osteoporosis, pfna, proximal femur fracture.

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content103

                Cited by6

                Most referenced authors398