Ponz-Lueza V, Valle J, Urda A, García-Coiradas J, León C, Marco F

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 205-210
PDF size: 201.80 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Subtrochanteric fractures are associated with a high rate of complications. Intramedullary nails have proven to be the best choice for treatment, but no implant has been shown to be superior to another. We want to study the differences between treating subtrochanteric fractures in the elderly with two different types of nails: T2 Recon vs Gamma3 long. Material and methods: Comparative retrospective study between 2013 and 2015 with 54 patients with subtrochanteric fractures and more than 65 years. The average follow-up is 12 months; 26 patients were treated with T2 Recon, and 28 with Gamma3. The duration of surgery, need for transfusion, evolution and complications of fractures were compared in both groups. Results: The duration of surgery was significantly longer for T2 Recon (p = 0.035), while the need for transfusion and fracture evolution were similar in both groups. Three cases required another surgery to achieve the final consolidation of the fracture. Two of them due to a failure of the T2 Recon implant, which represents 7.69% of the patients in this group, while the other case belonged to the Gamma3 group and it was sufficient to perform a nail dynamization. Conclusions: We found no statistically significant differences, except for a longer surgical time in the T2 Recon group, being a surgeon-dependent variable that is not enough to prove that one nail is better than another.

REFERENCES

1. Heiney J, Battula S, Njus G, Ruble C, Vrabec G. Biomechanical comparison of three second-generation reconstruction nails in an unstable subtrochanteric femur fracture model. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2008; 222(6): 959-66.

2. Umer M, Rashid H, Shah I, Qadir I. Use of femoral nail with spiral blade in subtrochanteric fractures. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2014; 48(1): 32-6.

3. Joglekar SB, Lindvall EM, Martirosian A. Contemporary management of subtrochanteric fractures. Orthop Clin North Am. 2015; 46(1): 21-35.

4. Hak DJ, Wu H, Dou C, Mauffrey C, Stahel PF. Challenges in subtrochanteric femur fracture management. Orthopedics. 2015; 38(8): 498-502.

5. Starr AJ, Hay MT, Reinert CM, Borer DS, Christensen KC. Cephalomedullary nails in the treatment of high-energy proximal femur fractures in young patients: a prospective, randomized comparison of trochanteric versus piriformis fossa entry portal. J Orthop Trauma. 2006; 20(4): 240-6.

6. Rethnam U, Cordell-Smith J, Kumar TM, Sinha A. Complex proximal femoral fractures in the elderly managed by reconstruction nailing - complications & outcomes: a retrospective analysis. J Trauma Manag Outcomes. 2007; 1(1): 7.

7. Liu P, Wu X, Shi H, Liu R, Shu H, Gong J, et al. Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation in the management of subtrochanteric femur fractures: a meta-analysis. Clin Interv Aging. 2015; 10: 803-11.

8. Saarenpää I, Heikkinen T, Jalovaara P. Treatment of subtrochanteric fractures. a comparison of the Gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw: short-term outcome in 58 patients. Int Orthop. 2007; 31(1): 65-70.

9. Imerci A, Canbek U, Karatosun V, Karap?nar L, Ye?il M. Nailing or plating for subtrochanteric femoral fractures: a non-randomized comparative study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2015; 25(5): 889-94.

10. Matre K, Havelin LI, Gjertsen JE, Vinje T, Espehaug B, Fevang JM. Sliding hip screw versus IM nail in reverse oblique trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. A study of 2716 patients in the Norwegian hip fracture register. Injury. 2013; 44(6): 735-42.

11. Pakuts AJ. Unstable subtrochanteric fractures--gamma nail versus dynamic condylar screw. Int Orthop. 2004; 28(1): 21-4.

12. Marmor M, Elliott IS, Marshall ST, Yacoubian SV, Yacoubian SV, Herfat ST. Biomechanical comparison of long, short, and extended-short nail construct for femoral intertrochanteric fractures. Injury. 2015; 46(6): 963-9.

13. 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): 1441-4.

14. Starr AJ, Buchholz RW. Fractures of the shaft of the femur. In: Buchloz RW, Heckman JD, eds. Rockwood and green’s fractures in adults. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. pp. 1683-730.

15. Ansari Moein CM, Verhofstad MH, Bleys RL, van der Werken C. Soft tissue injury related to choice of entry point in antegrade femoral nailing: piriform fossa or greater trochanter tip. Injury. 2005; 36(11): 1337-42.

16. Huang FT, Lin KC, Yang SW, Renn JH. Comparative study of the proximal femoral nail anti rotation versus the reconstruction nail in the treatment of comminuted proximal femoral fracture. Orthopedics. 2012; 35(1): e41-7.

17. Wu X, Yang M, Wu L, Niu W. A biomechanical comparison of two intramedullary implants for subtrochanteric fracture in two healing stages: a finite element analysis. Appl Bionics Biomech. 2015; 2015: 475261.

18. Strauss EJ, Kummer FJ, Koval KJ, Egol KA. The "Z-effect" phenomenon defined: a laboratory study. J Orthop Res. 2007; 25(12): 1568-73.

19. Rollo G, Tartaglia N, Falzarano G, Pichierri P, Stasi A, Medici A, et al. The challenge of non-union in subtrochanteric fractures with breakage of intramedullary nail: evaluation of outcomes in surgery revision with angled blade plate and allograft bone strut. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2017; 43(6): 853-61.

20. Müller T, Topp T, Kühne CA, Gebhart G, Ruchholtz S, Zettl R. The benefit of wire cerclage stabilization of the medial hinge in intramedullary nailing for the treatment of subtrochanteric femoral fractures: a biomechanical study. Int Orthop. 2011; 35(8): 1237-43.

EVIDENCE LEVEL

IV