+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of clinical and radiological outcomes in intertrochanteric fractures treated with InterTAN nail against conventional cephalomedullary nails: a systematic review

      * , 1 , 2 , 2
      Future Science OA
      Future Science Ltd

      Read this article at

          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.


          Intertrochanteric fractures, accountable for 50% of hip fractures, can be fixed with cephalomedullary devices such as Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA™), Gamma3 nailing system and TRIGEN™ InterTAN™ nail (IT). IT uniquely uses two cephalocervical screws that allow for linear compression and provide additional resistance to femoral head rotation. A literature review assessing clinical outcomes of these devices was conducted, with 14 studies enrolling 3104 patients meeting the inclusion criteria. PFNA and Gamma3 had better intraoperative outcomes compared with IT; however, IT had superior implant-related outcomes of cut-out and screw migration. No difference was found between IT and PFNA or Gamma3 in Harris Hip Scores, time to union, malunion and nonunion. Further long-term studies are needed to evaluate clinical outcomes and cost–effectiveness of cephalomedullary devices.

          Lay abstract

          Hip fractures remain a significant cause of morbidity and mortality within healthcare systems, with an estimated global incidence of 1.6 million fractures annually. Certain intertrochanteric fractures – a specific subtype of hip fractures – are treated surgically using intramedullary nailing devices such as Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA™), Gamma3 nailing system and InterTAN™ nail (IT). IT is unique, in that it uses two proximal screws. This study assessed the clinical and radiological outcomes of using IT over the traditional one-screw devices PFNA and Gamma3.

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Osteoporosis in the European Union: a compendium of country-specific reports

          Summary This report describes epidemiology, burden, and treatment of osteoporosis in each of the 27 countries of the European Union (EU27). Introduction In 2010, 22 million women and 5.5 million men were estimated to have osteoporosis in the EU; and 3.5 million new fragility fractures were sustained, comprising 620,000 hip fractures, 520,000 vertebral fractures, 560,000 forearm fractures and 1,800,000 other fractures. The economic burden of incident and prior fragility fractures was estimated at € 37 billion. Previous and incident fractures also accounted for 1,180,000 quality-adjusted life years lost during 2010. The costs are expected to increase by 25 % in 2025. The majority of individuals who have sustained an osteoporosis-related fracture or who are at high risk of fracture are untreated and the number of patients on treatment is declining. The aim of this report was to characterize the burden of osteoporosis in each of the EU27 countries in 2010 and beyond. Methods The data on fracture incidence and costs of fractures in the EU27 were taken from a concurrent publication in this journal (Osteoporosis in the European Union: Medical Management, Epidemiology and Economic Burden) and country specific information extracted. Results The clinical and economic burden of osteoporotic fractures in 2010 is given for each of the 27 countries of the EU. The costs are expected to increase on average by 25 % in 2025. The majority of individuals who have sustained an osteoporosis-related fracture or who are at high risk of fracture are untreated and the number of patients on treatment is declining. Conclusions In spite of the high cost of osteoporosis, a substantial treatment gap and projected increase of the economic burden driven by aging populations, the use of pharmacological prevention of osteoporosis has decreased in recent years, suggesting that a change in healthcare policy concerning the disease is warranted.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Comparison of a twin interlocking derotation and compression screw cephalomedullary nail (InterTAN) with a single screw derotation cephalomedullary nail (proximal femoral nail antirotation): a systematic review and meta-analysis for intertrochanteric fractures

            Background Intertrochanteric hip fractures are common and devastating injuries especially for the elderly. Surgical treatment is the optimal strategy for managing intertrochanteric fractures as it allows early rehabilitation and functional recovery. The relative effects of internal fixation strategies for intertrochanteric fracture after operation remain limited to relatively small studies which create uncertainty in attempts to establish evidence-based best practice. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies to assess the clinical effectiveness of two commonly used intramedullary devices: a twin screw integrated cephalomedullary nail (InterTAN) versus a single screw cephalomedullary nail (proximal femoral nail antirotation) in patients with intertrochanteric fractures. The following outcomes were considered: revisions, implant-related failures, non-unions, pain, Harris Hip Score and intraoperative outcomes. Odds ratios or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals in brackets are reported. Results Six studies met the inclusion criteria, two randomised controlled trials and four observational studies enrolling 970 patients with mean age of 77 years, and 64% of patients were female. There was a statistically significant difference (p value  0.05). There was a significant difference in blood loss and fluoroscopy usage in favour of PFNA, whilst no difference in operating times were observed between the two devices. Conclusions Our meta-analysis suggests that a twin screw integrated cephalomedullary nail InterTAN is clinically more effective when compared to a single screw cephalomedullary nail proximal femoral nail antirotation resulting in fewer complications, fewer revisions and fewer patients complaining of pain. No difference has been established regarding non-unions and Harris Hip Score. Intraoperative outcomes favour PFNA with less blood loss and fluoroscopy usage. Further studies are warranted to explore the cost-effectiveness of these and other implants in managing patients with intertrochanteric fractures.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Should the tip-apex distance (TAD) rule be modified for the proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA)? A retrospective study

              Background Unstable proximal femoral fractures are common and challenging for the orthopaedic surgeon. Often, these are treated with intramedullary nails. The most common mode of failure of any device to treat these fractures is cut-out. The Synthes proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) is unique because it is the only proximal femoral intramedullary nail which employs a helical blade in lieu of a lag screw. The optimal tip-apex distance is 25 mm or less for a dynamic hip screw. The optimal blade tip placement is not known for the PFNA. Aim The aim of this study is to determine if the traditional tip-apex distance rule (<25 mm) applies to the PFNA. Method A retrospective study of all proximal femoral fractures treated with the PFNA in Western Australian public teaching hospitals between August 2006 and October 2007 was performed. Cases were identified from company and theatre implant use records. Patient demographic data was obtained from hospital records. Fractures were classified according to Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Association for the Study of Internal Fixation. Fracture reduction, distal locking type and blade position within the head (tip-apex distance and Cleveland zone) were recorded from the intraoperative and immediate postoperative radiographs. Postoperative radiographs obtained in the routine treatment of patients were studied for review looking primarily for cut-out. Clinical outcomes were measured with the Oxford hip score. Results One hundred eighty-eight PFNAs were implanted during the study period, with 178 cases included in this study. Ninety-seven patients could be followed up clinically. There were 18 surgical implant-related failures (19%). The single most common mode of failure was cut-out in six cases (6.2%). Three cut-outs (two medial perforation and one varus collapse) occurred with tip-apex distance (TAD) less than 20 mm. There was no cut-out in cases where the TAD was from 20–30 mm. There were three implant-related failures (nail fracture, missed nail and loose locking screw), four implant-related femoral fractures, two non-unions, two delayed unions and one loss of reduction. Conclusion The PFNA is a suitable fixation device for the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures. There were still a relatively large number of cut-outs, and the tip-apex distance in the failures showed a bimodal distribution, not like previously demonstrated with dynamic hip screw. We propose that the helical blade behaves differently to a screw, and placement too close to the subchondral bone may lead to penetration through the head.

                Author and article information

                Future Sci OA
                Future Sci OA
                Future Science OA
                Future Science Ltd (London, UK )
                07 December 2020
                January 2021
                07 December 2020
                : 7
                : 1
                : FSO668
                [1 ]Basildon and Thurrock University Hospital, Nethermayne, Basildon, Essex, SS16 5NL, UK
                [2 ]Imperial College London, Exhibition Road, South Kensington, London SW7 2BU, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Author for correspondence: Tel.: +44 779 249 7242; akshaydate92@ 123456hotmail.com

                Authors contributed equally

                Author information
                © 2020 Akshay Date

                This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License

                : 25 October 2020
                : 18 November 2020
                : 07 December 2020
                Page count
                Pages: 13
                Funded by: Imperial College London, FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000761;


                Comment on this article


                Similar content668

                Cited by2

                Most referenced authors234