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

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

Piers J Yates¹  Anthony L Osbrough²  Andrej N Nikoloski² 

[1] Fremantle and Kaleeya University Hospitals, East Fremantle, Western Australia 6158, Australia;Fremantle Hospital Orthopaedic Unit, Fremantle Hospital, Level 6, B Block, Alma Street, Fremantle, Western Australia 6160, Australia

关键词: TAD;    PFNA;    Fixation;    Nail;    Intramedullary;    Fracture;    Femur;    Proximal;   

Others  :  814384
DOI  :  10.1186/1749-799X-8-35

 received in 2013-06-23, accepted in 2013-09-24,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

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.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Nikoloski et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Parker MJ, Handoll HH: Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures. Cochrane Library Database System Rev 2010, 9:CD000093. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000093.pub5
• [2]Klinger HM, Baums MH, Eckert M, Neugebauer R: A comparative study of unstable per- and intertrochanteric femoral fractures treated with dynamic hip screw (DHS) and trochanteric butt-press plate vs. proximal femoral nail (PFN). Zentralblatt fur Chirurgie 2005, 130(4):301-306.
• [3]Windolf J, Hollander DA, Hakimi M: Pitfalls and complications in the use of the proximal femoral nail. Langenbecks Archiv Surg 2005, 390:59-65.
• [4]Sommers MB, Roth C, Hall H, Kam BC, Ehmke LW, Krieg JC, Madey SM, Bottlang M: A laboratory model to evaluate cutout resistance of implants for pertrochanteric fracture fixation. J Orthop Trauma 2004, 18:361-368.
• [5]Simmermacher RKJ, Ljungqvist J, Bail H, Hockertz T, Vochteloo AJ, Ochs U, Werken C, AO - PFNA studygroup: The new proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) in daily practice: results of a multicentre clinical study. Injury 2008, 39(8):932-939.
• [6]PFNA: Leading the way to optimal stability: Synthes. Original instruments and implants of the association for the study of internal fixation. AO/ASIF. Technique guide. Stratec Med 2004, 1-44.
• [7]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(7):1058-1064.
• [8]Cleveland M, Thompson F, Wilson H, Ishizuka T: A ten-year analysis of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1959, 41-A:1399-1408.
• [9]Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM: Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation for the treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998, 348:87-94.
• [10]Lenich A, Mayr E, Ruter A, Möckl C, Füchtmeier B: First results with the trochanter fixation nail (TFN): a report on 120 cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2006, 126:706-712.
• [11]Saudan M, Lübbeke A, Sadowski C, Riand N, Stern R, Hoffmeyer P: Pertrochanteric fractures: is there an advantage to an intramedullary nail? A randomized, prospective study of 206 patients comparing the dynamic hip screw and proximal femoral nail. J Orthop Trauma 2002, 16(6):386-393.
• [12]Butt MS, Krikler SJ, Nafie S, Ali MS: Comparison of dynamic hip screw and gamma nail: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Injury 1995, 26:615-618.
• [13]Zou J, Xu Y, Yang H: A comparison of proximal femoral nail antirotation and dynamic hip screw devices in trochanteric fractures. J Int Med Res 2009, 37(4):1057-1064.
• [14]Bridle SH, Patel AD, Bircher M, Calvert P: Fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. A randomised prospective comparison of the gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1991, 73:330-334.
• [15]Jones HW, Johnston P, Parker M: Are short femoral nails superior to the sliding hip screw? A meta-analysis of 24 studies involving 3279 fractures. Int Orthop 2006, 30:69-78.
• [16]Gardner MJ, Stephen M, Briggs A, Kopjar B, Helfet DL, Lorich DG: Radiographic outcomes of intertrochanteric hip fractures treated with the trochanteric fixation nail. Injury 2007, 38:1189-1196.
• [17]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 proximal femoral fractures. Injury 2009, 40(4):428-432.
• [18]Brunner A, Jockel JA, Babst R: The PFNA proximal femur nail in treatment of unstable proximal femur fractures—3 cases of postoperative perforation of the helical blade into the hip joint. J Orthop Trauma 2008, 22(10):731-736.
• [19]Strauss E, Frank J, Lee J, Kummer F, Tejwani N: Helical blade versus sliding hip screw for treatment of unstable intertrochanteric hip fractures: a biomechanical evaluation. Injury 2006, 37(10):984-989.
• [20]Penzkofer J, Mendel T, Bauer C, Brehme K: Treatment results of pertrochanteric and subtrochanteric femoral fractures: a retrospective comparison of PFN and PFNA. Der Unfallchirurg 2009, 112(8):699-705.
• [21]Wild M, Jungbkuth P, Thelen S, Laffrée Q, Gehrmann S, Betsch M, Windolf J, Hakimi M: The dynamics of proximal femoral nails: a clinical comparison between PFNA and Targon PF. Orthop 2010, 33(8):10.
• [22]Takigami I, Matsumoto K, Ohara A, Yamanaka K, Naganawa T, Ohashi M, Date K, Shimizu K: Treatment of trochanteric fractures with the PFNA (proximal femoral nail antirotation) nail system - report of early results. Bull New York Univ Hosp Joint Dis 2008, 66(4):276-279.
• [23]Liu Y, Tao R, Liu F, Wang Y, Zhou Z, Cao Y, Wang H: Mid-term outcomes after intramedullary fixation of peritrochanteric femoral fractures using the new proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA). Injury 2010, 41:810-817.
• [24]Pu JS, Liu L, Wang GL, Fang Y, Yang TF: Results of the proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA) in elderly Chinese patients. Int Orthop 2009, 33(5):1441-1444.
• [25]Born C, Karich B, Bauer C, von Oldenburg G, Augat P: Hip screw migration testing: first results for hip screws and helical blades utilizing a new oscillating test method. J Orthop Res 2011, 29(5):760-766.
• [26]Xu Y, Geng D, Yang H, Wang M, Zhu G: Treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures: comparison of the proximal femoral nail antirotation and gamma nail 3. Orthop 2010, 33(7):473.
• [27]Zhou JQ, Chang SM: Failure of PFNA: helical blade perforation and tip-apex distance. Injury 2012, 43(7):1227-1228.